Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 23 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 25 >
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 24

[edit]

02:19, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Beyond Advice

[edit]

The cited sources are public and reliable. I need assistance not only for clarification but also for reformulating the text if necessary.

Regards Beyond Advice (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article is missing inline citations. Youprayteas (t • c) 07:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have written your draft BACKWARDS. You almost certainly need to throw it away and start again. Remember 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) 20:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Gosatin2

[edit]

How to change a title? I have to "Move" option in the Tool menu Gosatin2 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that for now. If and when the draft is accepted, it will be published at an appropriate title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:28, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Gosatin2

[edit]

The reviewer asked for more references without specifying what facts are needing that. The original (Italian) version has only those references and already has been accepted. Gosatin2 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gosatin2: the Italian Wikipedia is a completely separate project from us; what is acceptable there, may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. Content submitted to the English-language Wikipedia must meet our requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is to an interview. The second is a technical spec, which undoubtedly comes from the company. The fourth is evidently a press release (why is it tagged as being in Lithuanian?) 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.
So the only source which even might contribute to establishing notability is the third - but it needs analysis to determine how far it is merely repeating what Honda say. In any case, one independent source is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:08, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Katsuyorisan

[edit]

What can I do to improve this article and make it acceptable? Please help me, thanks. Katsuyorisan (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Katsuyorisan: nothing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to who or which rule? Your answer isn't acceptable to me. I edited the article and fixed all the issues multiple times. Without a logical explanation about why it got rejected, this totally seems like censorship by mini-dictator mods. I've donated to Wikipedia before, and being rejected without proper reasoning is just obnoxious. Katsuyorisan (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is VERY poorly sourced, showing zero evidence of any notability and reads like a hoax. Rejection was the correct result. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that personal attacks are not permitted. Wikipedia is not for telling about something that was created one day. You have no journalistic or academic sources summarized, showing how this meets the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Instead of getting a clear answer like this, I get "nothing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further". Please warn @DoubleGrazing for vague and condescending answers. Katsuyorisan (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was rejected by 3 established editors for lacking in sourcing and presentation. I also review AFC and we are allowed to do that because we have an established and clear record of understanding what an article needs to pass muster. This would appear to be a consensus if we take those responses collectively which I don't think would change. If it was going to change one of the reviewers would have likely approved it. If you have a copy I'd be happy to look and see if I agree. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 24 February 2024 review of submission by User no wiki

[edit]

Hi, I am struggling to understand what I need to change to have this listing published. Can I please ask for some assistance?

Thank you User no wiki (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User no wiki: you're being asked to cite your sources inline; currenty ⅔ of them are lumped together at the end where they support nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my latest decline comment @User no wiki, you've unfortunately made it worse with your latest edits. Carefully follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if most of the sources are from Stenseth, or from her associates (eg galleries who have shown her work). None of those are relevant to a Wikipedia article. 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) 20:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Pickerwheel

[edit]

The rejection reason is not neutral

Please find more details in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Windawindawinda Pickerwheel (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickerwheel: you're Windawindawinda, then, are you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Pickerwheel (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: your account is < 3 hrs old, and you've straight away created this draft and found that talk page; what is your involvement in this matter and/or with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking on people is a serious crime @DoubleGrazing
Wikipedia has an option in creating an article that doesn't allow everyone to ask what's their connections with the subject
Options in creating an article:
I'm paid to edit
I'm writing about myself, or a close person/subject
I'm not connected to the subject Pickerwheel (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickerwheel the sources in the draft do not show notability for David Windsor and I therefore agree with the rejection as an uninvolved reviewer. By any chance are you David Windsor? Qcne (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that a Wikipedia user is allowed to ask for the identities of other users. The article show notability based on Wikipedia guidelines. What do you mean it doesn't show notability? Pickerwheel (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Pickerwheel (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, I am absolutely allowed to ask if you are David Windsor - or more generally if you have a conflict of interest. So I ask again: are you David Windsor or do you have a conflict of interest in this article?
The draft does not prove notability under WP:NPEOPLE. Let's go through your sources to understand why:
  1. The Independent: an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  2. Variety: A brief mention and so does not provide WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.
  3. emmys.com: an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  4. Variety: A brief mention and so does not provide WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.
Then in the external links:
  1. IMDB: Not permitted to use as a source under WP:IMDB.
  2. Rotten Tomatoes: Just a database entry, does not show notability.
Therefore, the draft does not meet our notability standards at this time. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't violate your privacy by outing your identity if you haven't done so, and based on off wiki information. We can absolutely ask about conflicts of interest, or if you are the subject you are writing about. If you are paid by David Windsor, the Terms of Use require disclosure. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 24 February 2024 review of submission by 102.89.23.130

[edit]

Please don't let my Wikipedia page get deleted, let it get approved because this is my first time publishing with my details on Wikipedia 102.89.23.130 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Nafees meets our special definition of notability, therefore he (you?) does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. You should not be using Wikipedia to promote or advertise a subject. Qcne (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that. like most people who come here and try to create a new article before they have learnt any of the craft of writing Wikipedia articles, you are having a frustrating and disappointing time. Would you try and build a house when you have just started learning to be a builder? Or book a public concert the day after you first picked up a guitar?
In addition, one of the Wikipedia policies that you have not found out about it the one very strongly advises against writing about yourself. 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. This means that to write about yourself successfully in Wikipedia, you will need (after finding the independent published sources that are essential), to forget everything you know about yourself, and write only what they say about you. Do you see what that is not encouraged? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 24 February 2024 review of submission by User no wiki

[edit]

I am trying to better understand what is missing from this publishing still, but I would greatly appreciate help to find a solution to match Wikipedias demands. Thank you for helping out so quickly! User no wiki (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left clear instructions @User no wiki on how to reference properly. For the third time, please go to WP:INTREFVE and use in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Fabrica.de.colores

[edit]

Please see my reply on the talk page there. Wikipedia has a less general article (Mapheus 5) so I am wondering why the attempt to create a more general one was declined. Fabrica.de.colores (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrica.de.colores I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Mapheus 5 is a thoroughly inadequate article, and if it were submitted for review now, it would absolutely not be accepted. See WP:OSE. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang

[edit]

My references are all from reliable offical news websites. My topic is a Chinese railway station, so all references are from China, but they are offical news websites and totally reliable. Siqi Huang (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Panzlms

[edit]

I am currently eddiding the page as asked and see that LandmarkScout was cut in 2. Probably the autocorrect kicked in. Can you help me with this? In this case it is one word LandmarkScout. Panzlms (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not particularly relevant while a draft. You may just leave a note on the talk page for the reviewers, when accepted, it can be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 24 February 2024 review of submission by EdvardsWWE

[edit]

How could I improve this? EdvardsWWE (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nicely as I can say this, there is no amount of improvement at this point for this to warrant an article. It looks like a personal pet theory or perspective which for us is not a notable subject. Now if it develops into one someday and multiple independent sources write abut it sure. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FORUM. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_24&oldid=1211154938"