Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 5 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 7 >
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 6

[edit]

05:18, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Kqhubb

[edit]

Hi, this is my first time of creating Wikipedia Article and my request was rejected.. And I don't know what I'm missing please help me out in whatever that make my article rejected Kqhubb (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kqhubb wikipedia isn't a social media site. Please also see WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please is there any article that I can follow in the creation? Kqhubb (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kqhubb. I've moved your comment from the next section to this one, as I believe that was your intention.
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
In order to successfully create an article about yourself, you would need to find several places where people who have no connection with you, and have not been fed information on your behalf, had decided to publish in-depth material about you. Having found these sources, you would then need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write an article summarising what these sources said. Do you see why autobiography is discouraged here? ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


05:29, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Adarshkagineregunduraj

[edit]

Submission declined Adarshkagineregunduraj (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to know which specific reference or references was the cause of article to be declined. Adarshkagineregunduraj (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adarshkagineregunduraj it's the other way around - there aren't references that indicate the subject qualifies for an article. There are also no sources at all for the "personal life" and "education" sections. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:12, 6 January 2024 review of submission by HimeshAudichya10

[edit]

Please help me in creating this article as its my first article HimeshAudichya10 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HimeshAudichya10: did you use to previously edit as PHP Poets Udaipur? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nope HimeshAudichya10 (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The advice I will give you is to put this aside for several months. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Somali Editor

[edit]

Abrar University is a university in Somalia that is registered to the federal government of Somalia, especially the Ministry of Education of Somalia, so can you tell me why you refused to create an official article like other universities in the country. In conclusion, I would like to request that you publish an article, and you can also search for information about Abrar University Somali Editor (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Somali Editor: this draft was already rejected earlier, so you should not have resubmitted it at all. Also, an article on this topic was deleted following an AfD only c. 6-7 months ago, and this draft was created two days after that, which clearly contravenes community consensus. If you had some evidence of notability now, you might have a case, but you didn't. That is why I rejected this draft again. Please leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the reports from Abrar University
https://www.egerton.ac.ke/university-news/somali-universities-forge-partnership-with-egerton-university-for-agricultural-advancement
https://isni.oclc.org/cbs/
https://african.land/blog/article/african-land-presents-unique-investment-opportunity-student-housing-for-abrar-university-students-in-somalia-b902
https://www.iau-hesd.net/university/abrar-university
https://abrar.edu.so/ Somali Editor (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Somali Editor: none of these contribute in the slightest towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I can use that one alone as a reference. Somali Editor (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 6 January 2024 review of submission by 109.76.238.32

[edit]

Hello. Can you help me to get this published please? How many more citations are needed? Thanks! 109.76.238.32 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Sunaram Majhi

[edit]

please recheck my article Sunaram Majhi (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunaram Majhi: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. As pointed out, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content written in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, your draft is not in English. You should submit this draft on the Wikipedia of that language. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Genarogatti

[edit]

Sounds too critical about the subject? Idk, might someone wanted to help to extend the article - feel free. I registered just yesterday for take to the public info regarding Bitget's fraud. I won't promote this crooks like excellent company. Might it could be more looks as a neutral, but I don't know how to perform it. Genarogatti (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Khant99

[edit]

Is there any problem? If so please do tell it. Khant99 (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was told in the decline notices that you ignored and just re-submitted with no change. Social media links are rarely reliable sources but all you have in links to https://www.facebook.com/login/ anyway KylieTastic (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very new to this so there might a problem with my editing style. But I want that Wikipedia page for a person to be uploaded and accepted. Is there any problem regarding that? If so please do tell me about it and I will try to fix it. Khant99 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh okay I understand. In that case I might have to remove the references. Khant99 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Khant99, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS) - See Wikipedia:Notability (people) KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it if you want. But I want it to uploaded and accepted. I will probably again the next time later. I am very new to Wikipedia and I may not understand everything. All I know is I want this Wikipedia biography page to be accepted. You can fix the mistakes and errors that you see in my draft. I don't ignore I understand. The references Facebook link is not working well. Yeah. I may try again the next time later. It's either Your choice delete or accept. Khant99 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our choice is to follow Wikipedia's policies. Your want is not of any particular relevance. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my problem if you want to follow Wikipedia's policies. I don't mind actually. But what I want also matters. No matter if it's particularly relevant or not. Khant99 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khant99 the draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Not a problem. Khant99 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This disappointed me alot. Khant99 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Qcne (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Do you recommend trying without adding references? Khant99 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References are a requirement and the lack of them is the reason your draft was rejected? Qcne (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did add references. It is a social media Facebook refrence. I think I should try adding a website refrence instead of a Facebook refrence. I think the Facebook refrence is not working in the Wikipedia service. Never mind. If I have to try again it takes alot of time and patience. I have to write the article and add one by one all by myself. Sadly it got rejected. That's why I got a little frustrated. Hoping for the best next time hopefully. The reason I am so focused about this is to make a musician that is not featured on Wikipedia to have it and have a big name especially on Wikipedia since it's such a good global worldwide famous website. Khant99 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook and other social media websites are not appropriate references. You need to read our core policy at verification. Qcne (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only the references that are good. Other references might not as be as fulfiling and complete. It also have great sources. But you said it's not appropriate. Then I will have to find other websites. I will try again the next time. But since I got rejected I would try later since I feel like my accomplishment is pushed down. Maybe if I try again I will get rejected again. I did read your core policy at verification. I respect all of you and your opinion and choice except the rude ones. I will never give up on Wikipedia since I find it appealing and fun. Khant99 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Facebook references are the only references that you can find then I am afraid the person does not yet merit a Wikipedia article. But that's okay: there are 8 billion humans and not every human merits a Wikipedia article. Only topics that meet our special definition of notability may have Wikipedia articles written about them, and the majority of the human race and our work does not meet this criteria. Qcne (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop, Khant99.
You have been told repeatedly that what you are trying to do with this draft is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia.
If what you want to do is contribute to this great resource, you are very welcome: you can find some suggestions of how to contribute in the "Help Out" section of the Community portal. But if what you want to do is tell the world about yourself, then please find a site that allows you to do that, not Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will stop I just want to be a helpful community member in the Wikipedia community. I Hope you understand my motivation for this. Yes I want to contribute great resources. Wikipedia is my only type and not other websites there's only Wikipedia which is a great website. I just don't understand how my draft article which I worked hard for got rejected. But I respect all of your opinions respectfully since you all are owners and bosses and have experience and knows about this. Khant99 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Khant99, if you still don't understand why your draft was rejected I really recommend starting at WP:PILLARS before making any other contributions at Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all in a simple way. I follow the rules, guidelines and do great contributions. I think the reason it got deleted is for the references option. One guy here mentioned that the references link only forward to https://www.facebook.com/login/, and not the actual link. Khant99 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the draft was rejected was for two reasons:
- your references were incorrect. Facebook cannot be used as a reference.
- there was no indication of our special definition of notability.
Please carefully read what we mean by reliable sources and notability before contributing again. Qcne (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that Facebook is not allowed to be used as a reference. Which other websites are allowed and such as? Now I know that Facebook can't be used as a references but my references are actually incorrect and why? It is correct. Maybe I'm wrong? Khant99 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then I will not use Facebook for the reliable sources and references since you said it's not allowed and that it is incorrect. But the references I used are correct. You're just saying that Facebook is not allowed for reliable sources and reliable references. Which I understood now. My references are not poorly sourced or unsourced placed uncarefully. It's correct it's just the Facebook references and sources that are not accepted which I know just now. You're saying I should gather my reliable sources, references, contributes and facts from other websites other than Facebook. Khant99 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? The references you used were not correct because you used Facebook. This has been explained repeatedly. Why are you saying otherwise. I think we are going around in circles and I have doubts you have the competence to edit Wikipedia at the present time. Qcne (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying otherwise. Yes You are right about that I'm not saying you're wrong, it's wrong because you explained it to me I already know that you said Facebook is not a reliable source and I listened to that and I listened to why my references are wrong because its from Facebook. I understand. I will try to gather my reliable sources, references and facts and links from other websites and not Facebook. You don't have to doubt that I have the competence to edit Wikipedia because I will edit and contribute to Wikipedia at the present time, if I'm free. Khant99 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 6 January 2024 review of submission by ASmallMapleLeaf

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia, but this was rejected after a submitted it when an IP added information. I corrected a typo in the info box, but other than that, how is this not notable? In future I would also like guidance on how to find athletes taking part in the Olympics as well, if possible. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does not have a single reference which even refers to the subject of the draft, let alone discusses it in depth.
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject, nothing more. Until there are multiple sources which discuss, specifically and in depth, "Syria at the 2924 Summer Olympics", there is literally nothing which can go into an article about the subject.
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Ok I probably should have mentioned here, I checked the IP's source beforehand and found nothing related to Syria or any country outside a few people mentioned, I showed good faith here and believed that I had missed something in Wikipedia guidelines (I had not intended to submit this particular article until more sources popped up).
The same IP also removed my edit on Draft: Palestine at the 2024 Olympics, which was a much better source, and replaced it with this source and text. Potential WP:NOTHERE? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ASmallMapleLeaf: this draft cites a single source, which doesn't even mention Syria. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, as well as the general WP:GNG notability guideline, to better understand what we mean by notability in the Wikipedia context, and how to demonstrate it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I saw the IP (which also editted my draft on Palestine) and believed he had some sort of info I did not have ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 6 January 2024 review of submission by ASmallMapleLeaf

[edit]

This article was not nominated at AFC but the edit regarding athletes participating in equitation made by an IP editor (a copyedit from a page regarding Singapore with adjustments) was reverted. Not sure how much better this article is but sourcing is much better. Posting this here for advice on whether this would be ready to go to AFC or not.

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ASmallMapleLeaf please just submit and await a review. We don't "review in advance" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Filipoet

[edit]

hello! I've had trouble getting my page approved, I can delete the section on 'awards', given that the references provided do not seem to fit with what Wikipedia requires. I am confused about the 'notoriety' section/note for rejection, as I have a similar background as my business partner, and his page is live/actually has fewer citations than mine does. It is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indran_Amirthanayagam

Please advise, thanks! Filipoet (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "pages" here, we have articles on notable topics. Indran Amirthanayagam is VERY poorly sourced and should not be used as an example, see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Filipoet, right now this appears mostly promotional in nature, like the sort of thing you'd want on your own personal website. That's not how wikipedia articles are supposed to work. We certainly don't want quotes like "a stunner and will leave you reassessing that phone you carry everywhere in your pocket. Privacy is thrown right out the window with that phone and its location services following you around, eavesdropping, and so much more" - what on earth does this tell readers about your work? You'll want to reduce that kind of thing first. Next, make sure that you can show at least two major, in-depth reviews for at least two of your books. Add these as references somewhere in the article. We don't need quotes from them - we just need to know that they exist. This is what defines your "notability" as an author. Basically, for an author of any kind to qualify for an article, we want to see that reliable, (relatively) mainstream sources have written about their work in some depth. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, that's helpful! I've read and reviewed "notability", is there a Wiki definition of what 'mainstream' is that I can refer to? Filipoet (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closest will be reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The policy in question is at WP:RS - I used "mainstream" because I think that tends to be more helpful for editors working in an area like yours where often none of your sources will come from venues the average AfC reviewer has heard of. To explain the problem (I hope): new editors tend to look at WP:RS and come to the conclusion "none of my sources are unreliable", whereas an AfC reviewer is more likely to come to the conclusion "I cannot be certain that any of these sources are reliable". The closer your sources are to something like The New York Times or PMLA, the more likely it is that a reviewer will conclude they are reliable. The closer they are to something that looks like a personal blog, the less likely it is. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Epirerecords

[edit]

Please tell me what I can do better Epirerecords (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epirerecords Nothing, as your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to promote "up and coming" people, but an encyclopaedia of notable topics that meet our special definition of the word notable. Qcne (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Hwickkid

[edit]

I have included articles and references in my Wikipedia submissions. Despite this, why am I still facing rejections? Hwickkid (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwickkid none of the sources are reliable as they are user-generated which includes IMBD (see WP:IMBD) so has now been rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 6 January 2024 review of submission by 118.107.131.60

[edit]

Hi Is it possible to make this live again by following you advice to make changes in it 118.107.131.60 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, which means that it cannot be submitted again. ‍ Relativity 22:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_6&oldid=1195054701"