Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 16 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 18 >
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.


July 17

[edit]

00:50, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BeExcellent2EachOther1988

[edit]

What is missing? This is my first time ever setting up a Wikipedia page? What sources are appropriate and which are not? I kind of need a hands-on tutorial from an expert on this and understanding the differences. There's enough sources and he's been in the news enough times to warrant his own Wikipedia page but it's I think a matter of picking the right ones. BeExcellent2EachOther1988 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeExcellent2EachOther1988: what's missing is evidence that he is notable. The sources are mostly about Alternative Baseball, or him talking about something (mostly Alternative Baseball), whereas we need to see significant coverage of him directly. And those sources must meet the WP:GNG notability guideline.
BTW, you've uploaded the photo as your own work. Can you tell us how that came about; how did you happen to be in the House of Representatives to take that photo? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BeExcellent2EachOther1988! Tutorials are something I can do. Let's see if my effort helps you with your draft. There will be quite a few links to click on for more info, so please go ahead and read through them as well. Take your time; there's no deadline and no rush. As long as you make a small edit to your draft every six months, it will remain available for you to work on. You don't need to submit the draft until you are confident you've improved it - and in fact I recommend not submitting it until you've done your best to address the previous reviewers' concerns, because continually submitting drafts with no improvement leads to a rejection and that is the end of the road fo a draft.
Your goal here is to establish that Duncan is [[WP:NOTABLE|notable by Wikipedia standards], which are very strict. Someone might be an amazing person who does great things, but they can still not be notable for Wikipedia. You've got a few pathways for notability, so ideally you'll pick one and sort of tailor the draft towards that. I think for Duncan you'll be using WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines, but there might be something else (like WP:NSPORT) that you think fits better - there will be a whole pile of possiblities at WP:NBIO, which lists various kinds of people who are notable and how you prove a specific person is.
You establish notability by providing suitable sources, which need to fit WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. 'Reliable' requires that a source should have editorial oversight and come from a reputable publisher - most major news sources would count, for this, but a random blog does not.
One more important thing: because you're writing about a living person, you also have to meet WP:BLP, the policies about biographies of living people. That means that everything you write needs to be backed up by a solid source. You can use interviews for very limited facts, like a birth date or partner's name, but not for anything that might be disputed.
DoubleGrazing has mentioned that most of the sources address Alternative Baseball, and my main note was going to be that most of the sources are interviews, which you can't use for notability because they're not independent. If there's no good sources for Duncan himself, you might want to pivot to write a draft for Alternative Baseball instead. Otherwise, go through your sources and discard any that doesn't meet all the criteria of the 'golden rule' - this is probably the most frustrating and disappointing part of writing a draft, honestly, so don't get disheartened - and then look for new ones that do meet all three criteria.
If you're struggling with deciding if a source is okay or not, I'd be happy to look at it in more detail for you. And of course if you have more questions, come back here and someone will pop up to try to help out. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:29, 17 July 2024 review of submission by 105.163.157.109

[edit]

Hello, Kindly let me know why the references on the this draft are not accepted. Please explain as I am not understanding 105.163.157.109 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are FazielahWonderCommsSA, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
It's not that the sources aren't "accepted", it's that they are all primary, and therefore cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. There isn't anything in the draft that would suggest obvious WP:NPROF notability for academics, either.
Also, some of the sources don't verify anything in this draft. For example, the last one merely points to the RSTMH website's home page, which doesn't mention Bediako, let alone say that he has received some sort of award or honour from them.
What is your relationship with this person? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query at User talk:FazielahWonderCommsSA, please read and respond to it. Note especially the paid-editing part. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 17 July 2024 review of submission by JEbert68

[edit]

My article has been declined several times for not being notable, despite all the reliable and international sources from different areas and several years. I put a lot of work into this and the community keeps deleting this over and over. I cannot get an understandable answer what I have to do to get this online. Can anyone please take a detailled look and explain where the error is and what can be done? Thank you as I am slightly desperate. JEbert68 (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JEbert68 I can see no trace of a review. You have not submitted it for a review. There is a button in the box at the top fr you to submit it. Nothing will happen until you do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I do, they will delete all my work again and again and again. And I cannot understand why. These sources are valid and many. JEbert68 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 Ah, I see now. Your prior attempt was declined as can advert and deleted thus: Draft:Lena Snow (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Notability (people), no real refs) and you then either requested deletion or blanked the page, so it was deleted on 2 May 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in detail. The cited sources are valid, and no advertisement is intended. There are many mentions in publications and exhibitions, this artist exists and is notable internationally. What exactly do I need to provide to you?
Thank you. JEbert68 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 See below. I cannot see what was deleted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68: User:JEbert68/sandbox/Lena Snow (Artist) was never submitted for review, that I can see at least, whereas Draft:Lena Snow was deleted because that's what you apparently requested. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please explain in detail which parts or sources or errors did provoke a denial/deletion?
Thank you. JEbert68 (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 I wish to approach this from the other end. Please read and understand WP:NARTIST. Your job is to prove that Snow passes it.
Then, remove all flowery text. You have written a lovely magazine article. Now write an article for an encyclopaedia instead. No words like 'famous', no emotional words, nothing. Write in your own words only what is contained in references. Do not write what you want to say and then struggle to find a reference. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 I have checked, at random, three of your sources, two of which do not mention Snow, one of which is a blog. So there is work to do here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Darnathiss

[edit]

Good morning, I have attempted to submit the encyclopedic entry for Enex Technologies several times, but it has been rejected due to issues with the sources of information. I believe that Enex Technologies deserves to be included in the free encyclopedia as it is a highly relevant international Italian company in the industrial refrigeration sector and has received significant media coverage. For instance, major national Italian newspapers such as "Il Corriere della Sera" (the leading national newspaper), "La Repubblica" (the second leading national newspaper), and "Il Sole 24 Ore" (the leading national economic newspaper) have all covered the company. Could you please point out one or two sources among those I have used that are not correct? Thank you very much for your attention and cooperation. Darnathiss (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darnathiss: I'm going to turn this around, and ask you to highlight the three strongest sources in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard, as required by the WP:NCORP guideline. Note that this means significant coverage, not just passing mentions, and also no interviews, routine business reporting (appointments, M&A, financial results, new markets or product announcements, etc.), and no advertorial, sponsored content or other churnalism. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, in light of the fact that your entire edit history, both here and on the Italian Wikipedia, have to do with this business, suggesting some sort of relationship. Please read and respond to the query. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Darnathiss! I'll start with recommending you have a look at WP:42, our 'golden rule', which lays out what you need for a suitable source. There are three criteria: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - more information in the WP:42 link. 'Reliable' means you need a source with editorial oversight and reputable publishing standards. Every single source you rely on for notability has to meet all three criteria, which is often what causes problems for new editors. Having a look at your sources, here's what I see:
1) does not mention Enex (not significant coverage).
2) is paywalled, so I can't assess it.
3) is highly promotional and seems to have come straight from the company (not independent).
4) is the same as 3), with an interview from the founder (not independent).
5) is also promotional and only has a paragraph about Enex (not independent, not significant coverage).
6) is also promotional (not independent).
So you might have one source, 2) - I'm not sure if it's usable or not - but you need at least three suitable sources for a draft. DoubleGrazing has given you some excellent advice on what to avoid, and hopefully this analysis will also help you discard sources you can't use. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Jdmmpower

[edit]

I want to know how articles are reviewed and allowed to get published and what mistakes can be avoided when publishing articles Jdmmpower (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted a draft about a topic that already has an article. If you want to add to the existing article, you may edit that article, or use its talk page to propose edits.
To learn more about the draft submission process(which is usually voluntary), please see Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BlowAtHighDough

[edit]

A new page I was trying to publish was turned down because reliable sources do not adequately support it (exact quote at bottom). Could you give me some guidance on what sources are unreliable? Do I need more references? The field of references for regional sports is a little barren and I feel I have used the majority of sources available. For reference, I used the Wikipedia page for LFA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Fighting_Alliance) as a guide for building this page and sourcing. If you could help me narrow down the next steps to fix the page that would be much appreciated.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." BlowAtHighDough (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the sources for Legacy Fighting Alliance are not adequate, because, like many thousands of other articles, it was created before we started being so careful about quality. See other stuff exists.
For your first pass, you need to check each source against the triple criteria in 42. If it is reliable but not independent, or if it is independent but does not contain significant coverage, then it is possible that it can be used to support a basic non-controversial piece of information; but only sources which meet all three criteria count towards establishing notability, and the great majority of an article should be cited to such sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BJP4KERALAM

[edit]

What is the problem in my article of Draft:Palode santhosh BJP4KERALAM (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Palode Santhosh
@BJP4KERALAM: I couldn't say without reviewing it. The draft was resubmitted c 5 weeks ago and is awaiting a new review. As it says there, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,866 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 17 July 2024 review of submission by 41.217.28.63

[edit]

I submitted the draft above and this remark was made, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Although, I have corrected the second remark for the post to be rewritten formally. However, the sources I provided are the only sources I have, the journals written were not published online. But are in hard copy. From your article on reliable sources, there is no room to have journals that were not published online by a reliable source. so what do I do? 41.217.28.63 (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if properly cited. The problem is that you have swathes of unreferenced biographical content, which either needs to get sourced or get removed. Even if you are going for WP:NACADEMIC notability, every claim that a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced to a third-party source that can verify the claim. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be reliable, but they do not adequately support the contents, as approximately half the paragraphs are completely unreferenced, which violates our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP).
Sources do not need to be online, you can cite offline sources as well, as long as they are otherwise of sufficient quality, and you do so with full bibliographical details; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
Anything that cannot be supported by reliable sources must be removed. (One could also then ask... where did you get that information, if not from reliable sources?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I'm writing to request assistance with creating a Wikipedia page for Reena Gupta, a is a politician and spokesperson for Aam Aadmi Party.

I've compiled a list of reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Based on these sources, I believe Reena Gupta meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

While I've drafted the article in the Wikipedia sandbox, I'd greatly appreciate any guidance or feedback you could offer to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's standards and is ready for publication.

I'm particularly interested in assistance with the following (if applicable):

Structure and organization: Is the information presented in a clear and concise way? Neutrality: Have I avoided any promotional content or personal opinions? Notability: Do the sources I've provided adequately demonstrate [Personality Name]'s notability? Referencing: Are the citations formatted correctly? Thank you for your time and support. I look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely, Jeswanth Jeswanth2 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeswanth2: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your references are not in-line and, looking at the titles of those sources, the likelihood any of them discuss Gupta in any depth is remote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeswanth2: your question, esp. "[Personality Name]'s notability", suggests you're using a chatbot of some sort. We would so much rather hear from you than from an algorithm. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a stretch to call a party spokesperson a politician. Politicians are generally seeking or hold public office. "Party activist" might be better. You've summarized what she's been involved with but not summarized any independent sources that discuss how her work was particularly important or influential. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Shariq Khan 1

[edit]

I want to create my own Wikipedia page. I made one as well but that got rejected and the reason was the provided information is not notable enough to publish the page. I want to know how i can make a Wikipedia in this situation and if there was some more issues so please let me know about that as well. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not the place to write your autobiography. Please read WP:AB and WP:NBIO before further attempting to publish articles. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 22:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shariq Khan 1 I also think the multiple messages your fellow editors have left on your talk page more than explain why your draft is completely unsuitable. Please read them. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_17&oldid=1236134572"