Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 12 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 14 >
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 13

[edit]

For Review of Draft Page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mira-Bhayander,_Vasai-Virar_Police#

[edit]

i want to get review for the Draft Page - Draft:Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police#

And If it is not yet suitable to get published then please tell me how this page (compare the pages Below, with Above) are published with low information and low references and citations -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagpur_Police

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune_Police

Pratik.S2005 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: you get a review when you resubmit your draft; we don't provide on-demand reviews or pre-reviews here at the help desk.
We also don't compare drafts to existing articles, we compare them to the currently applicable guidelines and policies. If you're unhappy with those two articles, you're welcome to improve them, or if they cannot be improved, to initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sure Pratik.S2005 (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have resubmitted the Draft for a Review, please do share the feedback Pratik.S2005 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:28:29, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Yotrages

[edit]

I created the page with good and reliable sources, and I need a review. Yotrages (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yotrages: if you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Rema discography, then no, that isn't pending a review, since you haven't yet submitted it. You need to click on that blue button to submit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you, I just submitted it now, I think I already submitted. I'm still waiting for the review. Yotrages (talk) 9:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

08:59, 13 January 2024 review of submission by DVINTHEHOUSEMAN

[edit]

My draft was rejected because there weren't enough secondary sources. Most of the sources cited comes from other entities than Motorola or the U.S. Patent Office. The only reliable secondary sources I could find, I listed, and those secondary sources cover a lot of the article, even if the citation list looks fairly bare for its length. Since this isn't a particularly well covered topic (long since obsolete two way radio encryption products) and is quite obscure today, some information is contained in old forum posts as there is no other source for information other than "such and such product exists". I'm unsure on how to write a complete article on this topic without also including information from unpublished or unreliable sources since there isn't enough interest in the topic to generate a published, reliable source about the covered material.

I'm not sure what to do with this article. DVINTHEHOUSEMAN (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DVINTHEHOUSEMAN: this draft was only declined, not rejected; reject means that you cannot resubmit it, decline only means it isn't yet ready to be accepted, and you should work on it further and resubmit at a later time.
That said, if you cannot find sufficient sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable, then it may not be possible to accept this at all. Wikipedia articles only summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously published, and from that it follows that if no such sources exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them to create an article.
Note that sources do not need to be online, and they do not need to be in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Razrsharpest

[edit]

I am a new contributor trying to create an article about a video game developer. I want to know if it is ok to write about the investments received by the developer or would it be considered promotion. Razrsharpest (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Razrsharpest: no, I wouldn't say that mentioning investment raised is promotion, per se, but it is pretty useless, both in the sense of not really providing any encyclopaedic value, and also in that it's routine business reporting which doesn't contribute anything towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

[edit]

Maybe I understand now why I have these problems. I am not writing a biography of myself. I am just writing a biography of an artist Jean-Pierre Groppi who died 20 years ago. Id like to have on the Wikipedia as other artist are.It is my way to keep alive his painting and help someone to understand who was he. I have a few painting of this artist and like to have some reference of the artist for others tat might know him as well. Jean-Pierre left some souvenir but not on the internet or very few. I made the login and create the name as jpgroppi to avoid to use my personal name.If this creates confusion or ambiguity I can make a new account from scratch. Will this help? Should I start all over with another login name? Thank you for an answer. Jpgroppi (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgroppi You do not need to use your personal name or any proper name; your username must be unique to you. You may request that your account be renamed at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
If there are few sources about him, though, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename my account is not my intention, do not take me wrong. I was just saying if the account name seems abiguous then I can change it. But it is not the case. Not sure I understood your phrase: "If there are few sources about him, though, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time"... Well??? But if I understood correctly, I could link you to a lot artists who are unknown and will stay as is, and even so are figuring in the Wikipedia.com. How could you explain this differences. So I do not understand this reluctance to let show Jean-Pierre Groppi. Sorry but please help me to enter Jean-Pierre in the Wikipedia and tell me what is wrong in the text supplied or references. Tank you for your time. Jpgroppi (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia that should not exist, but as this is a volunteer project, it takes time to get to them. This cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, you can identify any inappropriate articles you see so action can be taken. We need help. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this.person, then those need to be summarized in the draft. If you have no spurces, there is nothing you can do. If you want to tell the world about this man, consider social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I will not mention any artist that in my opinion should not be at Wikipedia. I know a few of them and know that they lie about the merit, prices and trofei they received. But it would not be so nice to dilapidate them for my profit. Plus, who can decide who is brave and who is not. I still think Jean-Pierre could be mention in your fantastic media which has absolutly nothing to do with any social media. So please tell me where I was wrong writing something about Jean-Pierre and tell me why some with less capability are part of Wikipedia. Thank you again for your comprehension Jpgroppi (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 13 January 2024 review of submission by IonaFyne

[edit]

Hello, May I resubmit the article, revised, with no photos or illustrations at all? I ask this because trying to understand how to tag photos/illustrations, showing I have the copyright, and working out what happens here and what happens on Commons, is taking me a lot of time. I don't want to delay the six-months 'window' for editing and resubmitting the draft. I'd like to have deleted all photos/illustrations that I have so far uploaded, as I feel it has become messy and further confused me. I'd rather have the article approved, and then make a fresh start, separately, to add illustrations at a later date, properly tagged and chosen so that everything can be clear on whatever needs to be confirmed. Thank you, IonaFyne 

IonaFyne (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IonaFyne: that does indeed sound like a plan. Images have no bearing (or at least, no positive one) on a draft's prospects, so you might as well leave them out for now, esp. if there are potential copyright etc. issues that could get in the way of things. As you say, you can always add such bells & whistles later on, once the draft has been accepted (assuming). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Deanjbyrne28

[edit]

How do I declare a COI on a page? I have created a page and am awaiting review, but would like to disclose the COI for transparency and cannot seem to find how. I have note this at the top of the page in any case. Thank you. Deanjbyrne28 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deanjbyrne28: for making your disclosure on the article/draft talk page, use {{Connected contributor}}. Alternatively, you can place the disclosure on your own user page with {{User COI}}. Or for belt & braces, you can do both. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Filmshack (renamed user, apparently) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, I will try that. yes I have been approved for renaming. Filmshack (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Pratik.S2005

[edit]

It does match the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, But yet it is not getting published and I hope the approval may be given by an Indian approver only...... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: it self-evidently does not match our notability guidelines, and consequently has been rejected. It will therefore not be considered further, but a reviewer of any nationality. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am just saying that if any local approver would evaluate the page, then they can decide which is notable or not.... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Neolithicgambler

[edit]

Dear whom it may concern,

I am wondering what is wrong with the submission I have made regarding this film's wikipedia profile - I added references and links to secondary sources proving its existence. I have no problem making adjustments where necessary, I am just a little confused as to what needs to be rectified before I submit it again? Neolithicgambler (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only have two sources, to pass this process we usually look for at least three sources. The production section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neolithicgambler: "proving its existence" isn't really the point; proving its notability, either per WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, is what we're looking for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neolithicgambler, your first source is not independent and your second source, while independent, devotes only four sentences to the film. What's required are multiple (at least three) independent sources devoting significant coverage to the film. Cullen328 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 13 January 2024 review of submission by 88.88.76.229

[edit]

There is no online sources covering Open BSL. I'm one of the people who made it, so it thought it would be enough to make myself a source. How can i solve this? 88.88.76.229 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, but any article about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, your personal word is insufficient, especially with a conflict of interest as you have. This is why the draft qas rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about what they do. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable content guideline is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Wikipcontributor800

[edit]

Help needed!

I am bit confounded. Want to create article "Jožo Nižnánsky" whoch is presently "Draft:Wikipcontributor800"

What to do? Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipcontributor800. You should be able to edit Draft:Jožo_Nižnánsky now. 94rain Talk 05:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_13&oldid=1197347879"