Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 11 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 13 >
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.


February 12

[edit]

02:18, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Elijah the brown

[edit]

I added more to the article, it is enough for Wikipedia? Elijah the brown (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah the brown: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Junaidmaasoodi09

[edit]

WHY MY ARTICLE DECLINE Junaidmaasoodi09 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Junaidmaasoodi09

[edit]
have submitted the article and it has been rejected. Can u please give me an advice that how can I publish the article? Junaidmaasoodi09 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Junaidmaasoodi09: my advice is, don't write about yourself, and certainly don't write promotional and entirely unreferenced content like you did at Draft:Junaid ul Islam. See WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMO, WP:V and WP:N. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Ma'button

[edit]

Trying to submit for review don't know what to write on 1.Draft title 2.wikiproject classification tags 

Ma'button (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ma'button: you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do I get the editor? Ma'button (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing you can do is to forget about Wikipedia and go on about your life as if you had never heard of it. There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. If you truly merit one, someone will eventually write it once they take note of significant coverage of you in independent reliable sources, showing how you are notable. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 12 February 2024 review of submission by 146.19.59.50

[edit]

Accepts 146.19.59.50 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been (twice) rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. We don't post product rumors in a standalone article, perhaps in the more general Microsoft Windows article. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Antony Jeevarathinam Mayuran

[edit]

I have posted an article about renowned human rights activist and humanitarian worker S.C.Chandrahasan in Wikipedia. I don't know why it was declined. Can you please help me to update the article. Antony Jeevarathinam Mayuran (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Jeevarathinam Mayuran I fixed your link(it needs to include the "Draft:" to work properly). I restored the decline message- it must remain on the draft until it is accepted. Please review it, and the links therein, for more information- but your draft is completely unsourced. Any article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about them. Please provide your references- see Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format them. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Cornelcosta

[edit]

Why am I being rejected? Cornelcosta (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornelcosta: because your draft is promotional, with no evidence of notability, and you don't properly address these issues.
What is your relationship with this institution? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relation with the institution but this in an well known institution & famous. I thought it should be on wikipedia. That is why I was adding. Cornelcosta (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We thought that you were associated with it because of language like "St. Joseph's School and College, through its journey, have been an epitome of quality education and community service. Its establishment and growth stand as a testament to the enduring commitment of missionaries and the local community towards the advancement of education in Bangladesh". Please learn more about neutral point of view, and also read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cornelcosta: in that case, please don't write as if you're from the school's marketing department.
In any case, you should be summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, citing them as your sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Flag Creator

[edit]

I added sources, and still, it is not an offshoot. I wonder what improvements I should make. #bodyContent aFlag Creator { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ggggggg; font-weight: monoscope; } 11:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flag Creator: you should not make any improvements, as this draft has been rejected. Please do what several reviewers have suggested, namely to develop the existing Flag of Syria article instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 12 February 2024 review of submission by 2001:818:EA63:8300:9C61:8A99:67E3:9225

[edit]

Hi,

First of all I would like to apologize if I'm making basic mistakes heres but this is my first contribution to wikipedia. I seen there was a basic draft already for this company so I decided to add more information to it. However, after an enormous effort of investigation, the contribution has been declined and I don't understand why. The reasons mentioned where:

- in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)

- reliable

- secondary

- strictly independent of the subject

I have googled a lot about the company history, the founder, listened to podcasts and tried to make reference to specialised magazines that reviewed their products. I have tried to use the most reputed media links I could find. I have also taken as other companies operating in the same market:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValhallaDSP

Many of the links are to outlets specialised in electronic music. And that is a really common fact among them: Sound On Sound, Music Tech, MacProVideo, etc.

Can you please give me specific examples of what is wrong?

Thank you very much for your help

José 

2001:818:EA63:8300:9C61:8A99:67E3:9225 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're writing about a company, you need to show that the company is notable. Citing sources that are not about the company, and instead about its products or people, will not help, as notability is not inherited by association.
Each of the sources that you rely on to establish notability must be secondary (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.) and reliable and independent of the subject and provide significant coverage directly of the subject, and we need to see at least three such sources.
Comparing your draft to existing articles can be misleading, as those articles can have problems which haven't been picked up yet, and which you won't want to replicate. Also, finding articles which don't comply with our policies and guidelines does not mean that we should be creating more such problems. All new articles must be in line with currently applicable requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please remember to log into your account when editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your important explanation. Clonesen (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Iupmain

[edit]

Why is my article declined and i have researched on it well? am contributing on to a Kenyan presidential running maté whose info is not available. Iupmain (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iupmain: this draft was declined, and subsequently deleted, for being promotional. You need to write in neutral, factual manner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Mdomingos91

[edit]

Hello, i added new sources and references for this article, can anyone more familiar with wikipedia help with the formats? thank you very much Mdomingos91 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdomingos91: if you're editing via the source, then above the edit window there is a menu bar, and in it a drop-down menu for 'templates'; that is the easiest way to add correctly-structured citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Bilalhasm

[edit]

which are notable Bilalhasm (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilalhasm: I don't know what you're asking, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 12 February 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:8:3441:5488:88FF:FED6:D2B7

[edit]

No need assistance, I have put some references of this article. The reference links were collected by some sites. So take all the links as references. 2409:40F4:8:3441:5488:88FF:FED6:D2B7 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and I suggest you stop messing with it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Nabeeha Virk

[edit]

I want to know how can I resubmit this draft by making changes to it. Nabeeha Virk (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabeeha Virk: what you can and should do, is disclose your interest in this subject, as requested (twice) on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Shohan parvez23

[edit]

Why you rejected my article? Shohan parvez23 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message on your user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Gråbergs Gråa Sång

[edit]

Hi. I recently submitted and had this article accepted. I'm autopatrolled, but there was PAID history and I wanted a second pair of eyes.

It seems that though the article was accepted, it hasn't been patrolled, as in it doesn't show on google. I thought that was a package deal, is that wrong? I can wait, but I'm vain, or possibly autopatrolled-spoiled. I don't even know where I can check if an article is patrolled or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give up – what am I missing here, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint, such as it is, is that Nicôle Lecky doesn't show up on google. Afaik, an afc-accepted article should show up on google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång that's a Google issue, not something Wikipedia controls but it is curious as the person who accepted it is also autopatrolled which I think is what would matter. @Robert McClenon do you mark your acceptances as unpatrolled? S0091 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 That's part of what I'm trying to learn, if it is a google issue, or if google haven't been given the chance to see it. It appears to me at this point that google can't see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have noticed indexing is inconsistent. For example, I am not autopatrolled nor an NPP reviewer but sometimes drafts I accept are indexed almost immediately before NPP review. In this case, I wonder if an NPP reviewer marked as reviewed it would be indexed. Will see what Robert says and take it from there. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, DoubleGrazing, and S0091: - I don't intentionally mark my AFC acceptances as either patrolled or unpatrolled, so that is probably a matter of a preference or option. How do I check that?
The Google issue would have to do with when their spider crawls the web, but I think that Google has a fast spider and gives a relatively high priority to English Wikipedia. I accepted that article three days ago, so it should have been crawled by now, so I think the issue is whether my acceptance is autopatrolled. I don't know. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This really is strange. I can't find anything wrong with that article, and yet Google refuses to bring it up no matter how you search. The only thing I can think of is, the log shows a lot of moving around, multiple reviews, etc. (most recently by Robertsky, a week ago), and maybe at some point Google's indexing lost track of it. Wonder if moving it back to drafts, republishing, and patrolling once more would help sort it out? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing This title has indeed been moved a lot, and there are 2 edit-histories:[1][2]. I don't know if that helps or if they should be merged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser... Drafts obviously aren't indexed, but I'm wondering if Google somehow locked onto that version at some point, and is now only looking at it, and not the published version? I don't know if that's even possible, just a thought. Okay, in that case maybe merging the histories, and then doing another round of draftify/publish/patrol, would fix it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: it does seem to be a problem with Google; I tried Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo, and with them the article comes up top, as you'd expect.
Whether it's something we can help fix from our side, I don't know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Nicôle_Lecky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it was, I just unpressed and pressed the button again, so it should work now. I don't how long after is the time to check. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely was something wrong with it. For some reason, it was under the impression that it's an old article. Maybe that's what it told google too, and google didn't doublecheck, if it does that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old article, in the sense it's been in mainspace several times before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I see you pinged me for my thoughts on this. At a very quick look I'd suggest the issue centres around the fact that the page title has been simply a redirect to Mood since October 2022 until 7th February this year when you started to work on it.
I imagine that Google's crawlers recognised that page title as a WP:REDIRECT and intentionally ignored it as not being worthy of indexing - and rightly so. I would imagine it would then definitely not be a priority to revisit!
I also note that Google states that even if one manually submits a single URL to be indexed, "You can request that an inspected URL be indexed by Google. Indexing can take up to a week or two;" (source)
So, if it takes a week or two when you've given Google's crawlers a firm kick up the butt, I'd imagine it'll take a lot longer for a pre-existing page that was intentionally ignored, but has since had its contents changed to then be indexed!
Many (many) years ago it used to be possible to submit an individual url to a search engine to force indexing, but nowadays (and I've just checked) one has to add a verification html file to one's website to prove ownership- and that's not going to be possible for us here on Wikipedia. Whether there is some high level way that WMF and Google have worked together to allow, say, admins to submit a page for indexing without attracting spammers, I honestly don't know. But I think this is simply a case of having to wait.
Proviso: All the aforementioned is pure guesswork! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. The history is bit of a mess[3][4] but hopefully Usedtobecool has applied the required foot where indicated. If nothing happens in 3-4 days or so, I might bug people again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point was that 3-4 days on top of the 6 that have already passed is not that much. WP:THEREISNORUSH. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but google tends to look quickly on WP. I think. When I moved your Armored mud ball to mainspace it was top of google in like minutes. Different circumstances, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(came here from the WP:NPP mention) This is probably water under the bridge at this point but did anyone confirmed it was still being marked as noindex in the HTML source itself? Near the top for pages kept out of Google there should be a line that reads something like <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">, you can look at any page near the top/in the NPP queue for an example and once it's either aged out or is approved it should read <meta name="robots" content="max-image-preview:standard"> (missing the noindex,nofollow). Skynxnex (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that afaict Nicôle Lecky doesn't have that now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 12 February 2024 review of submission by Sessehi

[edit]

It wont post Sessehi (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sessehi I fixed the link to your draft(you need the "Draft:" portion). It is written in Norwegian, this is the English Wikipedia. You will need to visit the Norwegian Wikipedia to post it there. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_12&oldid=1208555380"