Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 9 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 11 >
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.


January 10

[edit]

05:34, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Ankwasa Harlord

[edit]

Hello Blessings for the continued zeal and passion to document important information all over the world, my draft (Draft: Ankwasa_Harlord) has been rejected and I here to seek help from any editor willing to write this on my behalf... I will be more than grateful... Thanks Ankwasa Harlord (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankwasa Harlord: firstly, your draft was only declined, not rejected; those two mean different things.
Secondly, you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO.
Thirdly, and in direct answer to your question, we don't get involved in editing here at the help desk; the onus is very much on you to create your own drafts. If you have specific questions, you may ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification 😊 blessed day Ankwasa Harlord (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Jung808

[edit]

Dear All,

How can I get support to translate an existing specific official page from Azerbaijani to English? Thank you for your time and recommendations. 

Jung808 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Answered below) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Zolakrystie

[edit]

I recently submitted a page draft which got reject, reason stating I "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".

However, I have used third party independent sources throughout the citations for this page and kept it as factual as possible. Throughout the whole page, i only referenced their company website once, to identify the list of products they had. I also read the notability terms and don't understand which condition was breached.

Could someone look into this and provide further explanation on how to revise the article? Zolakrystie (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zolakrystie: "materials produced by the creator of the subject" isn't limited to just the company's website; many of the other sources you cite also originate with the company, even if they are hosted on third party sites.
This draft was declined (not 'rejected') as promotional. The decline message is standard boilerplate for that particular decline reason, not written uniquely for your draft. You need to look at the overall picture, and dial down the promotionality considerably. One effective way of doing this is to only summarise what independent secondary sources have said about the subject, rather than writing what you want to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Jung808

[edit]

Dear All,

I need this page to be translated: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvin_Pa%C5%9Fayev Could you guide me, please how should I proceed? Thank you 

Jung808 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jung808: this question would be better asked at the Teahouse or the Help desk, but since you're here, take a look at WP:HOWTRANS where you should find pretty much everything you need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. Jung808 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Koukkukasi88

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to translate a Finnish Wikipedia page DL Bunuel (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Bunuel) into English, but can't seem to manage. The Finnish page has been approved. I'm the author of that one as well. For some reason I can't seem to find a way to either translate an article from Finnish to English nor create a new, English page for the subject and the connect these two. Please help, Koukkukasi88 (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koukkukasi88: as I've already stated in my review comments, I believe the subject is notable, and in that sense you're pretty close to this being accepted. You need to improve the sources, however, as some of them are completely inappropriate for referencing articles on living people (WP:BLP) especially.
Note that the Finnish and English Wikipedias are entirely separate projects with their own policies and requirements. Just because this has been accepted into fiwiki says nothing about its prospects here on enwiki. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't create multiple drafts on the same subject, like you've just done with Draft:DJ Bunuel. Improve the existing draft instead. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Rmvika

[edit]

Please advice on how to improve article? 

Rmvika (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmvika: you cannot, as this draft has now been rejected for complete lack of any proof of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6

[edit]

2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you already, this will not be accepted. You're only getting your IP addresses blocked one by one. Unless that's what you're after, I suggest you stop now and find a more worthwhile pursuit (which shouldn't be too difficult). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop generating utterly garbage ChatGPT justifications as to why this should not be immediately deleted. Qcne (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Lektor2002

[edit]

Kleros Submission Declined - questions as to why Greetings, I recently submitted an article to Wikipedia that has been outright declined for reasons of not having adequate references. I disagree, since some of the highest authorities on the topics of online dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution have spoken extremely highly of this experimental technology.

Draft:Kleros

Could you tell me what specifically is lacking here?

Thank you very much in advance. Lektor2002 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lektor2002: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, not for inadequate references.
To save us sifting through 25 sources, perhaps you could point out the 3-5 that are strongest in terms of meeting the WP:GNG notability standard, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, allow me to expound on this from a notability standpoint.
-"On 28 May 2021, for the first time in blockchain arbitration history, Mexican courts enforced an arbitral award relying on a blockchain arbitration protocol (“Blockchain Arbitral Award”), as explored in the report found here (“Carrera Report”) (see the Appendix for the Blockchain Arbitral Award, which is in Spanish). "
- Maxime Chevalier on Kluwer Arbitration Blog, one of the key solutions for international arbitration, seen here: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/03/04/arbitration-tech-toolbox-is-a-mexican-court-decision-the-first-stone-to-bridging-the-blockchain-arbitral-order-with-national-legal-orders/
-Kleros design has also been analyzed in depth by Janet Martinez, one of the leading experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution, who is also the Former Director, Gould Alternative Dispute Resolution Research Initiative in her paper "Designing Online Dispute Resolution" that can be found here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=jdr. You will notice that Kleros design is compared to eBay's dispute resolution, as well as state based dispute resolution mechanisms.
-Proof of Humanity, one of the first blockchain based decentralized digital identity platforms ever, created by Kleros has been covered by Time Magazine: https://time.com/6142810/proof-of-humanity/
-Furthermore, from an academic standpoint, Kleros has been the topic of in depth research by Amy Schmitz (again, a leader in the field of dispute resolution research and Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law) and Colin Rule (creator of eBay's dispute resolution system). Their research can be found here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=facpubs
-Kleros is making such waves in the ODR space that it was even featured in the UNCTAD Report directed at consumer protection agencies as a key case study in the blockchain field: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tcsditcinf2023d5_en.pdf
Let me know if more sources are needed to point this out, Google Scholar and other platforms have many different academic sources to derive information about Kleros from. Lektor2002 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you associated with Kleros in some way? Also note that due to past disruption, there are special rules when editing about blockchain or crypto, I will post these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with Kleros in any official capacity, I'm working in mediation and Kleros is one of the projects that I've been doing deep dives on and following for a couple of years already.
If you can, please let me know what are these special rules, given that as far as I see it as an academic, there should be no barriers for Kleros to be part of Wikipedia. Lektor2002 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula

[edit]

where can I copy the link for my article? 

Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula, You cannot do anything with this draft as it has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion under CSD U5 criteria because an reviewer considered it a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog site where you can post anything. It is a free encyclopedia that accepts quality content on notable subjects. I recommend reading WP:Five pillars and WP:What Wikipedia is not for a better understanding. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Damarsa

[edit]

My submission on February 23rd 2023 was declined saying "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However the sources I mention are reliable and verifiable. I would like to know exactly what resources are being referred as not adequately supported. Damarsa (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damarsa: much (most?) of the content is unreferenced. In articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. In other words, it's not so much a problem with the sources not being reliable (although LinkedIn certainly isn't, as it's user-generated), but rather with sources not being cited frequently enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Damarsa. The entire purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to allow a reader (anywhere, any time) to verify the information it is supporting. If the reference has not been reliably published (eg on LinkedIn) it does not serve this purpose, as people can say anything about themselves on LinkedIn (similarly other social media, and user-generated sites like iMDB and, yes, Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Sloboda is not accurate on her LinkedIn account; I'm saying that there is no way that a reader can know whether or not to trust it).
A citation to a book, without a page (or at least a chapter), is pretty useless: are you expecting the reader to read the whole book to look for where the information ? In any case, a book edited by the subject of the article is a weak source: with the best of wills, an involved editor is likely to choose writers, texts, and forms of expression, that favour themselves and their version of events.
A short biography published by his employer is another very weak source: it is likely that the text was written by him or his close colleagues - again, not independent. It also fails to verify the information it immediately follows (it nowhere says that he has held that post since 2002).
I won't go on. But your job in writing a draft about Hunt is first to find several sources each of which is all three of reliably published, wholly independent of Hunt and his associates and institutions, and contains significant coverage of Hunt. Then, forget anything you may know about Hunt, and write an article based solely on what those independent sources say. If that gives you a viable article, then you can add a small amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-indpendent sources - things like dates and locations. But if any substantial matter - a job, a responsibility, an event - is not mentioned in any independent source, it's not clear that it belongs in the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 103.176.185.160

[edit]

how can i create this.kindly guide 103.176.185.160 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, as this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 161.77.45.162

[edit]

Why isn't this suitable? 161.77.45.162 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of reasons:
  • We only publish articles on subjects which are considered notable, and there is nothing to suggest this is.
  • Everything has to be backed up by reliable published sources, especially in articles on living people, but nothing in this draft is.
  • If this is about you, then per WP:AUTOBIO, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Trainrobber66

[edit]

I don't know if the article now has enough sufficient data to have an article. Can you review it and see what more I can add to this? Trainrobber66 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Deepfriedokra, the rejecting reviewer. This shop made a bit of a brief dent in mainstream media in the UK, so I'm 50/50 on the notability. Qcne (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And may well be notable. Social media posts are not useful, generally. Alas, I am not the rejecter. Just the commenter.. Ah, news sources added... Maybe now. Maybe just locally notable? @KylieTastic: done the deed. 50/50? Is 50/50 likelihood of survival at WP:AFD still the threshold? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or was that 50% of 50%? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I don't know why I thought you were the rejector...! Hallucination!? Qcne (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now stupid TikTok trends that fill in slow news days are "50/50 on the notability" - Please stop the world I want to get off!! I came to work on an online encyclopedia to find some value in life and the human endeavour, but this is where we are... I turned the reject into a decline.... now where's that drink? KylieTastic (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Allo002

[edit]

I simply cannot find reliable sources because such research may never been documented... Please find such reliable sources... Allo002 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, @Allo002. But if there are no reliable sources then there can be no article. It's up to you as the editor to find reliable sources, but it simply might be this topic has not been documented. Once it becomes more documented, maybe you could try again. Qcne (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Thinkelise

[edit]

Hi! I suspected the reason for the first submission's rejection was due to insufficiently "reliable" or "independent" qualities of the reference sources. Quite a few of the references do show "significant" coverage as they are exclusively about the subject. This article is about a budding talent so when the BBC later published an interview about them, I added the BBC reference.

I would appreciate any guidance around what types of content will help this article pass review. Thank you. Thinkelise (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Budding talent", "rising", and "up and coming" are all terms that usually indicate a topic does not yet merit an article. A topic must have already arrived and be noticed in order to receive the significant coverage needed to sustain an article. Interviews are not independent sources and do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - thanks. I'll wait until there's more press coverage on F1 Academy. Thinkelise (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Seihlanunez22

[edit]

I was wondering what citations I am missing to make the article better. Seihlanunez22 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has no citations. Why should a reader believe it? (Note that I'm not impugning your veracity: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Suppose this draft were accepted. Next month somebody comes along and changes that paragraph - maybe because they have newer information, or they misunderstood something, or maybe they were vandalising: now how can a reader tell that the information is correct?)
The next paragraph has two citations: one to a publisher's page that doesn't mention him anywhere. The other to an actual journal, that actually mentions him, in the list of members of the editorial board. Congratulations: we have actually got to a piece of information that is verified by a source. Of course, since it is only a listing, we have no way of evaluating whether or not this is of any importance or significance.
Do you begin to see the problem? Please have a look at WP:BACKWARDS and at WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_10&oldid=1196022981"