Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 18 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 20 >
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 19

[edit]

03:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by FROZENMAGIC

[edit]

I need to know why its rejecting and what should i do to avoid that? FROZENMAGIC (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FROZENMAGIC: the draft (such as it is) remains completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability whatsoever; and this, after three submissions in quick succession. One can only conclude, therefore, that either the subject is inherently non-notable, or you have no interest in improving the draft to demonstrate notability, and either way it is pointless to continue the review process when we have over 2,500 other drafts to review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 19 August 2024 review of submission by MLachsteiner

[edit]

Hey there,

I’m a new and infrequent contributor, and I’m feeling a bit discouraged. My draft was quickly rejected, and the feedback I received was quite vague. After researching the issues, I made all the necessary corrections and politely asked the reviewers to take another look. Unfortunately, I haven’t received any further response, and my follow-up questions seem to have been archived even.

Could you please advise on what steps I should take next?

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Michael 

MLachsteiner (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MLachsteiner: there isn't any next step required, now that you've resubmitted the draft; it will be reviewed again when a reviewer happens to pick it out of the pool. (A technical detail: your draft has been declined, not 'rejected'. Decline means you're welcome to resubmit it after addressing the decline reason(s). Rejection means resubmission is not possible.)
I can tell you already now, based on only a quick glance, that the draft will almost certainly be declined again, for insufficient referencing (if nothing else). Articles on living people have strict referencing requirements, and your draft contains far too much unreferenced information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much. the german version of this article has been online for years, I didn't expect so many roadblocks. thanks for your quick and clear reaction anyway. could I trouble you for some advice regarding referencing? MLachsteiner (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MLachsteiner: pretty much every material statement you make has to be supported by an inline citation; ditto, any private personal and family details. Which source gives this person's WP:DOB, or the fact that he is married with two children? Where do the discography, filmography, and awards and nominations come from? Etc.
Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements; what is accepted into one version may not be acceptable into another. AFAIK the English-language version has the strictest requirements in what comes to referencing and notability, therefore what you're experiencing is not uncommon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the feedback MLachsteiner (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Sheringsaraeorge

[edit]

i tried to publish a well-known person who is an educationalist in India and the EU but unfortunately, it was rejected recently.

Hopefully looking your advice Regards Sherin Sheringsaraeorge (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further- that there is nothing more you can do. You essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as sources see it. We don't want just a list of his accomplishments, but significant coverage by sources that go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about him. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Matt46665

[edit]

Declined? New theories are not Wikipedia material? Matt46665 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt46665: exactly so. Wikipedia is never the first, or even among the first, to report on anything. We only summarise what other sources have previously published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matt46665 No, Wikipedia does not host original research or new theories. If independent reliable sources like the news or academic publications write about your theories, maybe then. To put it another way, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 204.111.113.8

[edit]

Can you tell us exactly why this keeps getting declined? What other references could you be looking for? This is an actual journal. 204.111.113.8 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study the WP:NJOURNALS notability guideline, and figure out whether and how this journal qualifies; then produce evidence thereof. (Hint: a couple of those indices look like they probably satisfy NJOURNALS C1.b, but the source cited against that claim could be improved – much better to cite the actual indices themselves.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in whilst editing and please respond on your talk page to the impression that you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. Who is "us"? User accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 173.196.137.238

[edit]

While we understand the requirements, we feel the draft has met the criteria as it includes reliable sources and mentions what his work has done for the industry.

It would be great if we could get better insight into how to improve the draft and get it approved as soon as possible. 173.196.137.238 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting, and only a single person should have exclusive access to your account. Are you on some sort of deadline? Wikipedia has no deadlines.
Please see the messages left by reviewers. It seems likely it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about him. We need more than a discussion of his activities. As odd as it may sound, you have too many sources. Concentrate on summarizing your three or four best sources. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 74.56.143.227

[edit]

I would like to know what is needed for this page to be published 74.56.143.227 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the pages linked to in those messages. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Theatrebuff1989

[edit]

Hi - I created a new bio page for the theatre producer Dafydd Rogers but it was rejected because it was too similar the page for David Pugh (Theatre Producer). This is because the two were partners and originally had a shared page. Someone edited the shared page to make it only a page for David Pugh and removed all mention of Rogers (in bad faith I think). I added back Rogers' name to their shared productions and made a separate page for Rogers. The advice upon submitting this was to re-merge the pages. Does this mean that the David Pugh page should not be a self standing page either? In my opinion that page had been subject to some kind of personal/political editing to remove Rogers from the record. It would be good to get some expert advice on whether the two pages should be remerged or remain as two independent bios. If Pugh is work his own page than surely so is Rogers as most of their careers were shared. I do not think that the pages should be merged because both men are now continuing to work independently in significant areas of UK Theatre production and administration. Thanks! Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether they work independently, but whether there is reliable independent published material for each of them separately.
With two people who work together, there are three potential subjects: person A, person B, and the partnership. It is perfectly possible for one or two of those three subjects to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability but not the other(s): it depends almost entirelyt on what has been published about them.
(I haven't looked at these particular examples: this is a general statement). ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this makes sense and has been the standard I've been following. I wonder if you could look at the specific entries please of David Pugh (which was edited by someone else from a shared page of David Pugh and Dafydd Rogers) and the draft for Dafydd Rogers? In this specific example Person A (Pugh) and Person B's (Rogers) notability was for more than 20 years through a partnership that has now ended (and all the sources are equal for both of them). since the dissolution of the partnership in 2019 both are continuing to work independently. This suggests to me that there should be two separate pages going forward but that each page might have some overlapping content from the partnership phase (which was the reason that Dafydd Rogers entry was declined). It would be good if you were able to let me know what you think if you had time? Thanks in advance. Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Liyabelll

[edit]

Hey, i've added more refrences to the article, Cobra baSalon was added to Barak Obama's playlist so it's very important to approve Dima XR article for his wider exposure and it's my first article so i need assistance Liyabelll (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liyabelll Wikipedia has zero interest in this musician's exposure. Being on Barack Obama's playlist is not one of the listed notability criteria. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Br advised that what is acceptable on the Hebrew Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:34, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Grant Drewyor

[edit]

After the latest admin feedback, multiple links that could be considered biased or non-independent were removed, and page content was once again updated for this page draft. Before resubmitting this page, I was hoping that an admin could assist me with determining whether or not the page is close to being reasonably approved for submission, or if further changes will need to be made.

More specifically, I was hoping for feedback on which specific citations do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Since the last denied submission, citations have been changed again, so I am hoping that these newly updated citations do meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

I truly appreciate your help, and my only goal is to get this page to a point where it can be accurate and helpful for the users of Wikipedia, so I will be grateful for any feedback you have that could steer me in the right direction for further re submission. Grant Drewyor (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews; you should submit it in order to get feedback. Any editor may help you with this, not just admins. Admins have no more authority than any other editor, just extra tools. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grant Drewyor, the most important thing is that all your sources need to pass WP:42, the 'golden rule'. This says that you must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The third criteria simply says that nothing related to the topic can be used to establish notability - so nothing from their website, nothing an employee's written, no interviews, etc. Your subject is a company, so you're trying to show - via your sources - that the company meets WP:NORG, the guidelines for organisation notability.
The first thing a reviewer will do on opening a cited link is ctrl+F (for "find") the subject of your draft. If any of your sources don't mention RightBio Metrics, they're no good to you. It looks to me as though some do mention a product of the company, but that's not the same thing - those sources might be suitable for an article on the product, though. My suggestion to you would be to go through each source and find out if any discuss the company, rather than their products or the field in general. Remove any that don't comply, and then go find ones that do.
I hope that helps you, and wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:46, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Guy Zapoleon

[edit]

This theory has appeared in the New York Times and is a well respected theory adopted by both the music and radio industry why is it not acceptable?

How can Wikipedia help me make this article acceptable?

Thank you,

Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Zapoleon: We do not publish original research. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
If this was a new theory(research) that was being published I could understand, but this is a widely accepted theory thats been published inside and outside my industry 32 years (music and radio). Wikipedia has other pieces discussing radio(and music) that contain theory that its published? So I'm trying to understand why its been declined please see that it was written about
in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/21/arts/pop-view-birth-and-rebirth-on-the-airwaves.html
and many other sources
https://www.google.com/search?q=zapoleon+music+cycle&sca_esv=ad3cebe3ffb4734a&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIKVgOkXtsdehPCMcm1lAJ9fLMqhzA%3A1724111058699&ei=0tjDZsifKoea0PEPyIq8yQM&ved=0ahUKEwjI0NOZnoKIAxUHDTQIHUgFLzkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=zapoleon+music+cycle&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFHphcG9sZW9uIG11c2ljIGN5Y2xlMgoQIxiABBgnGIoFMgQQIxgnMgQQIxgnMgYQABgFGB4yCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI5hxQtBpYtBpwAXgAkAEAmAGrAaABwAKqAQMwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgKgAtkBwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBJgDAIgGAZAGBJIHAzEuMaAH9w0&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Guy Zapoleon (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: it's no good saying it has been "widely accepted" and "published inside and outside [your] industry"; we need to see evidence of this. If it has been discussed in multiple reliable and independent sources, you need to cite those sources in the draft. There is now one link to a NYT article, plus another couple of links mentioned in the draft, but they're not properly cited, and it's not clear whether they actually support anything in the draft.
For future reference, Wikipedia articles should be composed by summarising what reliable and independent sources have published about a subject, citing those sources against the information they have provided. This makes the information verifiable, and provides evidence that the subject is notable, which are both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia features subjects like the 20 year fashion cycle where different fashions reappear. My articles state the facts of the repetition of music in the same way, the individual articles from year that the article was updated, show this evidence of how over a 9-10 year period(except in 90s) the core genres of pop music(Rock, Pop, R&B) grow more pop flavored(Rebirth), then harden(Extremes) then soften(Doldrums. This effects the Arbitron/Nielson ratings and mass popularity of the music discovery gatekeeper, which was radio for 60 years. This occurs most dramatically during 3rd phase which is the Doldrums. Here are some of the links including a few international ones in Australia(themusicnetwork) as well as in Germany (my-radio.biz)
https://www.allaccess.com/consultant-tips/archive/34349/music-cycle-updated-part-1
https://www.insideradio.com/free/guy-zapoleon-2023-marked-fourth-year-of-worst-music-doldrums-for-top-40-radio/article_6b1a4eb4-9e48-11ee-827f-9f9c3f6c47db.html
https://colemaninsights.com/tag/guy-zapoleon
https://themusicnetwork.com/whats-happening-to-chr-unpacking-the-music-cycle-theory/
https://www.insideradio.com/free/best-of-the-blogs-coleman-tackles-90s-music-conundrum/article_7e185512-b65c-11e8-abf5-2fc7576c64ab.html
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Archive-RandR/1990s/1992/RR-1992-10-09.pdf/page 34 and 36
https://www.billboard.com/pro/country-hits-on-pop-radio-morgan-wallen-luke-combs/
https://my-radio.biz/musik-zyklen-akzeptieren/
Please let me know what I need to do to get my theory published in Wikipedia. Or if I need to employ someone from Wikipedia to edit my work so it meets Wikipedia standards Guy Zapoleon (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: I think we're talking at cross purposes. I'm telling you that we only publish articles which summarise what other sources have previously said. You're wanting to publish some new theory (of yours?) here as the first platform. This is not possible, as we do not publish original research or even synthesis, and are never the first channel to publish anything.
I don't know what "employ[ing] someone from Wikipedia" even means, given that we're all volunteers, but just to say that getting someone else to write this on your behalf will face precisely the same obstacle.
The only way around this is if you can get this theory covered in reliable and independent publications, that would give us something that could potentially be summarised into a Wikipedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
I'm not sure what you mean as the theory has already been published in mainstream media as well as industry media. I just sent you multiple sources the Ten Year Music Cycle is printed in. The Music Cycle theory has been published in books "The Hits Just Keep Coming" by Ben Fong Torres and newspapers- The New York Times Neil Strauss https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/21/arts/pop-view-birth-and-rebirth-on-the-airwaves.html as well as Industry Periodicals-Radio & Records, Inside Radio, as well as International publications The MusicNetwork(Australia) and My-Radio.biz(Germany). I explain my theory in my original submission to Wikipedia and in my original articles(links to these are listed above) If my explanations above are not valid for Wikipedia I'm not sure what else I can do to get this published in Wikipedia. Any help or recommendations would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: You need to actually cite your sources, sticking to what those published sources explicitly say. The problem isn't a lack of sources, the problem is you aren't citing them and are expecting us (and by extension the readers) to accept what the article says on faith. We do not operate that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for clarifying this, Jéské. I believe I've now corrected my submission to cite my sources for the article. If it's possible I'd like to resubmit Ten Year Music Cycle article and have you review it for errors and hopefully you can help me get it to a place where it qualifying as a Wikipedia article
Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, you need to cite your sources inline. Every section needs to be referenced. A list of references at the end of the article will not suffice. Deb (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:The Repeating Ten-Year Music Cycle --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_19&oldid=1242114068"