Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 20 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 22 >
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 21

[edit]

02:40, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Bérangère444

[edit]

Good day everyone, the article I wrote on Okinawan prehistory got rejected because it did not have enough references. There are currently 34 articles and books in the references. I can find more, but could someone tell me how many I will need to be accepted? Bérangère444 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bérangère444, it's not rejected for not having enough references. It's been declined for not being adequately supported by reliable sources - ie, the sources aren't good enough, not that they are too few. But I'm not sure why you were given this decline. It seems fine. I'll have a more detailed look and resubmit+accept it if I don't find anything problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, thanks for your quick reply! If it's a problem of reliability I'm not sure how I can solve that, most of the people I put in the references are professors in universities or work at archaeological departments here. Shall I provide curriculum for each? Well, there is still the possibility you'll find the article correct after all! Bérangère444 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:03, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

Dear sir/mam, this page is original and notable in the sense that it works on the real intel 64-bit computer system and both its structure and functioning is completely different from (Unix/Multics) operating system kernel. Please review my draft again carefully. Please. Robstat7 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous responses you've received for this question. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, if you are kind enough, could you please tell me what is "exactly" missing? Robstat7 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7 If I'm perfectly honest, the answer is "everything". Please have a look at other articles on Wikipedia and read WP:FIRST and follow the links there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you consider my draft unique and different from other wikipedia articles? It is not about the guidelines but having something completely different on wikipedia. Robstat7 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robstat7 Why should you or your work be given special treatment that the other 8 billion people on this planet would also like, but not get? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is. I doubt how many of you are from the operating system kernel development background who can understand my work. Robstat7 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for you to write about your work. We want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with a topic say about it, not what those associated with it say. You've given no reason why you should be treated differently then everyone else who wants special treatment. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you want notability, right? Do you what will happen to the whole wikipedia if the outsiders come to know the truth of notability? Robstat7 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd certainly have a lot less work to do as AfC reviewers! Don't threaten us with a good time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7: well don't keep us in suspense... what is "the truth of notability"? (Just between you, me and the gatepost; we won't tell the outsiders.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is my final warning. Publish the draft in 5 minutes. Robstat7 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favour, don't go there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been published yet. Robstat7 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing give me the status update. Robstat7 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no update. We will not be publishing your draft. -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We are not interested in your proselytising, and the parts of the article that are not proselytising are so vague as to be completely and utterly meaningless even to a layperson. You have refused to source or defend your draft beyond making vague threats, non-sequiturs, and ultimatums. I foresee an indefinite block in your future if you carry on like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:13, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Brianfahmiguntara

[edit]

Hello admin. My name is Brian Fadli from Indonesia. I am writing this letter to request assistance in reviewing and developing the article about Huanyu Entertainment, which is currently in the draft stage.

Huanyu Entertainment is a company with significant influence in the entertainment industry, and I hope this article can provide accurate and comprehensive information to readers. However, I realize that this article still needs a lot of improvement and development to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

I humbly request the help of experienced admins and contributors of Indonesian Wikipedia to assist in developing this article. Your suggestions, feedback, and assistance will be greatly appreciated in ensuring that this article is suitable for publication and can benefit the broader community.

Thank you very much for your attention and support.

Sincerely,

Brian Fadli Brianfahmiguntara (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brianfahmiguntara You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this may take some time, please be patient. You will be given feedback if it is not accepted. If you have a more specific question, please ask here.
You speak of the Indonesian Wikipedia- that is a separate project from this one, with its own editors and policies. You will need to go there and be familiar with their requirements for writing a new article. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Useless D. Mid

[edit]

It is very notable, it was one of the most popular horror video games especially among generation alpha a few months back and I don't understand why you would class it as not notable enough Useless D. Mid (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Useless D. Mid: this draft has been rejected (for the second time), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Wikimartinaa

[edit]

This is correct information, please see it is important for farming people, it will help them Wikimartinaa (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimartinaa: I suggest you drop this matter. I've already said you're not allowed to edit under any account or IP address when you've been blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:35, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Writer.domain.amm

[edit]

Hey guys,

I'm curious as to why mine was rejected when mine is submitted for review and the other is drafted. I also already looked up my topic to make sure there wasn't another article about it, and when I began the draft, Wiki said that it was the only of it's topic.

Why was my published article rejected for a draft created after mine? Writer.domain.amm (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer.domain.amm: I take it you're referring to Draft:Angela Giarratana as the 'other' draft? It hasn't been submitted for review, so arguably yours shouldn't have been declined on that basis. Yours would/could/should be declined for insufficient referencing, though, so in that sense the outcome would be the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
I'm still figuring out how this messaging thing works. I didn't know it was a board, I thought it would go to my reviewer so that the subject commentary was flush. My bad on the confusion.
The article was rejected for another article existing (the aforementioned draft) with the same name.
Have a good one :) Writer.domain.amm (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Rossamccloskey17

[edit]

I am wondering why my article was taken down for copyright without any copyrighted material included in it.

Thanks! Rossamccloskey17 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossamccloskey17 I fixed your link, you need to include the "Draft:" portion. I can't access the website the content was from, but unless the text was explicitly released under a license allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution, it cannot be on Wikipedia. You shouldn't just be copying the content of your website here anyway- any article about your center must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rossamccloskey17: I cannot see the content as it has been deleted, but the reviewer found it to be a copyright violation of the material on the centre's website, and the attending administrator concurred. This is highly unlikely to happen for no reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 21 August 2024 review of submission by SparagusGamer

[edit]

So from what i understand the article is not eligible for a Wikipedia article and has to be scraped? SparagusGamer (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SparagusGamer: not quite so. The draft was declined because it doesn't (yet) show that the subject is notable. You need to provide evidence of notability, either according to the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PRODUCER notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any articles about the subject from "reliable sources", does that mean that the article is not eligible for a Wikipedia article? Sparaguss (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SparagusGamer: quite possibly. Essentially, we summarise what independent and reliable sources have previously said about a subject. If there are no such sources available, then they cannot be summarised, and consequently it isn't possible to base a Wikipedia article on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 21 August 2024 review of submission by SigmundaFreud

[edit]

Hi I keep submitting the page with references as asked but it keeps getting rejected - can anyone please tell me what I need to do to get it over the line? SigmundaFreud (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SigmundaFreud I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established that this person meet the definition of a notable creative professional. You have documented their work, but not summarized independent sources that discuss what makes them notable. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SigmundaFreud: primary sources do not establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SigmundaFreud, you have gotten some great advice, but if you don't mind I'd like to add some more.
First: slow down, there's no rush. Take your time to improve the article, finding suitable sources, before you submit it. If you keep submitting sources that aren't suitable, sooner or later a reviewer will decide there just aren't any good sources and will reject the draft. As 331dot said, rejection is the end of the line, so you want to avoid that!
Second: find good sources. With Wikipedia articles, sources are the most important thing. The article summarizes what's in the sources, nothing more. Many new editors write their draft and then look for sources, which is going backwards. Here's your crash course in good source finding!
Good sources, ones you can use to establish notability, must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': 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). Sources must meet all three criteria, so if a source has significant coverage in a reliable source but it's an interview (not independent), that source doesn't show your subject is notable. Because you're writing about a living person, you also need to follow WP:BLP (biographies of living people). If you haven't read that yet, please do!
Once you've found your sources, make sure you know how to cite them correctly. You've gotten most of the way there, but citations need to have more information than just a URL. Referencing for beginners may be helpful here.
Finally, I'm going to do a quick check of your first five sources, so you can get an idea of how they'll be looked at. Remember, you want to establish your subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, so as many sources as possible should match WP:42 to make it very clear he's notable.
Source 1, Vanity Fair: this is a single sentence quoting the subject; it does not show notability (not significant coverage, not independent)
Source 2, GQ: there are only photo credits; it does not show notability (as above)
Source 3, Esquire: same as source 2
Source 4, BAFTA: this is a promotional biography; it does not show notability (not significant coverage, not reliable, not independent)
Source 5, WWD: this includes photo credits and a single line about the subject; see source 1.
So none of your first five sources are any good to you. They show Charlie Gray is a photographer, but there are millions of photographers in the world. You need to establish that Charlie Gray is a well-known, notable photographer. Look for articles about his work, or books, or even academic papers - people writing about him who are doing so only because they think he's great (or terrible - you can be notable for being really bad at something!)
I hope that's been helpful for you, and that you have a better idea of what to do from here. If you want another quick source check later on, please feel free to come to my talk page and say hi - and if I've been unclear, ask for clarification and if I don't show up soon someone else definitely will. Good luck on your source hunt, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! SigmundaFreud (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Guidance on Vaibhav Palhade Draft Article

[edit]
Moved from WT:AN

Hello,

I am seeking assistance with a draft article on Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and the quality of sources used. The most recent feedback mentioned that the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and may not sufficiently establish notability. The reviewer suggested that I need more in-depth coverage and asked me to review WP:COI and WP:PAID guidelines.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GNG, and have made the necessary adjustments to the draft. Despite these efforts, I’m finding it challenging to meet the notability criteria due to the nature of the sources available.

Could you please provide guidance on how to proceed with this draft? Is there any specific advice you can offer to improve the chances of acceptance, or should I focus on gathering more substantial sources?

I appreciate your time and assistance.

Thank you, Ballal2003 Ballal2003 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ballal2003! The most recent concern was that Palhade did not satisfy WP:NWRITER, which has specific requirements. Which of the criteria do you believe he meets? Keep in mind that if none of them apply, he may still be notable under WP:GNG, the General Notability Guidelines - or he might not be notable at all, of course, but let's presume he is for the moment. My suggestion is to find sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for 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). Only these sources prove notability - other sources might be usable for very basic details like someone's birthday or children's names, but you can't use them as the evidence of notability that you need.
When I am looking for sources, my first step is to Google the subject in quote marks, like this: "Vaibhav Palhade". Usually the main tab is not helpful, because it will give you his social media and his website, and they are not independent and therefore not useful for notability. News, Books and Scholar are often where the good stuff is. Interviews are not independent, so anything that says things like 'we spoke to Vaibhav Palhade...' or 'Vaibhav Palhade tells us about...' in the preview Google gives you can be immediately discounted as well. If you find articles (or books, etc) that are not interviews and not on the subject's website, pull up the list of perennial sources and start cross-checking. Some publishers, as you've found, are considered unreliable and so you have to get rid of those sources too.
You already have some sources, so I will give you a quick analysis of the first five!
Source 1, by Chaturvedi, could be reliable and independent but is very short and doesn't really tell us much. Nevertheless, it's worth keeping for the moment - but if there are better sources that give us the same information, choose them instead.
Source 2, from Sakal, is reporting something Palhade has written, so it's not independent and can't show notability.
Source 3, by Bhandari, is suspicious - it's got a lot of what we call peacock words, which means intense praise. Words like 'impeccable talent', 'perfectly', and so on may indicate the writer is biased. I would not include this if I were you; it doesn't seem independent.
Source 4, from ABP Live, is a 404 at the moment - check your link.
Source 5, from Patrika, is mostly about things Palhade said, so it's also not independent.
I hope this has been helpful to you. Please feel free to ask questions if something is unclear, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Ballal2003

[edit]


THE MESSAGE WAS ALREADY SHIFTED HERE BY SENIOR EDITOR & MISTAKENLY REPOSTED HERE BY ME.PLEASE HELP ME TO REMOVE THIS REPEATED MESSAGE.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballal2003 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Hello,[reply]

I am seeking assistance with a draft article on Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and the quality of sources used. The most recent feedback mentioned that the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and may not sufficiently establish notability. The reviewer suggested that I need more in-depth coverage and asked me to review WP:COI and WP:PAID guidelines.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GNG, and have made the necessary adjustments to the draft. Despite these efforts, I’m finding it challenging to meet the notability criteria due to the nature of the sources available.

Could you please provide guidance on how to proceed with this draft? Is there any specific advice you can offer to improve the chances of acceptance, or should I focus on gathering more substantial sources?

I appreciate your time and assistance.

Thank you, Ballal2003 

Ballal2003 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered you on the Help desk, @Ballal2003. Please don't post questions in more than one place. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Dr. Carrotflower

[edit]

The "Submission declined" message tells me that my article doesn't have good enough coverage but I don't understand what more, specifically, I could mention. I would love some feedback on this. Ideally, tell me the information that should be there, that is not. Thank you. Dr. Carrotflower (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Carrotflower: An obituary in the NYT is always a good indicator of notability in my experience, but reviewers will generally expect at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage to be in the article in order to accept. I found this in-depth article in the LA Times and this article in photographmag.com, which, combined with the NYT article, may alone be enough for notability. Newspapers.com is down for me right now, but I can see many articles with significant coverage on newspaperarchive.com (e.g. this in the Mesa Tribune), so I have accepted the draft. C F A 💬 23:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_21&oldid=1253147564"