Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 9 << May | June | Jul >> June 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.


June 10

[edit]

05:25, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Djy Lectxr 727

[edit]

What must I do to be approved because it's busy telling me that my entry must be empty or removed Djy Lectxr 727 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djy Lectxr 727 please stop creating autobiographies without any citations to establish notability. The page has been tagged for speedy deletion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 10 June 2024 review of submission by 86.135.32.32

[edit]

Hi This page is based on the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Verstappen

This discussion will surround however multiple articles and rules regarding lists, and list sensibilities.

User Tvx1 asserts a consensus has been reached that the draft list is not notable, however, whilst not wishing to use WP:OTHERSTUFF , there is a strong precedent for this type of list for Formula 1 drivers as 5 drivers of similar notability have featured lists in this format. If not for the pattern of featured lists here then I would not write, however, due to this I believe that Tvx1 is wrongly asserting there is a consensus against such articles. Aside from Tvx1 and user Bretonbanquet, this has featured list precedent and seemingly a consensus in favour of this submission. Tvx1 has a history of being overruled for their opinions on such lists, as evidenced in the talk pages for the featured lists for existing F1 driver wins. It is worth note that historically these list pages existed for the top 5 drivers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners , however now only one of the top 6 does not have such a list: that being Verstappen.

I do not wish to ask for this list to be published, I wish for the submission rejection to be overturned to allow the original talk page to reach consensus (especially as on the talk page, Tvx1 wishes to delete the featured lists I have linked below, which is contentious at best as highlighted here on a denied deletion request page from Tvx1 for one of the featured lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna )

It is possible user Tvx1 does not fully understand LISTN guidelines and continues to push for their interpretation in spite of consensus as an honest attempt to improve the site quality, however, it seems to be of limited use for this draft. I previously reached out to Tvx1 on their talk page but received no response regarding this.

(This current post has been slightly edited for readability.)

The featured lists for precedent are below, implying a Wiki-wide consensus that such articles are in fact notable and that this denial is worthy of being appealed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Michael_Schumacher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Alain_Prost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Sebastian_Vettel 86.135.32.32 (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Talk:Max Verstappen#Split (2023) clearly indicates there is not a consensus as of then to create this article. The correct venue if you disagree is to establish a consensus there, post on WP:DRV to gain consensus to remove the salting of the title to allow the article to be physically created, then I will happily allow that article to be resubmitted. Mdann52 (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, I do not wish for this article to be created as I agree there is not consensus, I just wish for the rejection to be overruled as it should be an ongoing discussion and the rejection falsely asserts there is a consensus. "I do not wish to ask for this list to be published, I wish for the submission rejection to be overturned to allow the original talk page to reach consensus"
As it stands there are voices both in favour of creation and against creation, and to deny it on the assertion there are only voices against it has shut down this discussion from taking place properly. 5 users excluding myself are in favour of creation to 2 against, this is not a consensus to either create or deny creation of the article - I merely restated the reason as to why it could be created to show that there is no consensus. Also, as an aside, if two users consistently disagree with all others and a consensus can never be made, how are we to go about this? What ratio of for versus against is needed to be a consensus? Do these two users have effective veto power or is it worth considering continuing this discussion? 86.135.32.32 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The matter (of splitting) can be discussed irrespective of whether a draft exists, and whether it has been rejected or merely declined. That discussion is outside the scope of AfC, and should not be repeatedly brought into the AfC help desk.
I noticed that you've made only three edits, all to this thread. If you have a registered account, please log into it whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I wrongly believed that the denial stopped the split discussion. As for the edits, I do not have a registered account apologies! I will make this my last comment here as per your advice - thank you both immensely. 86.135.32.32 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you were one of the registered users involved in that discussion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Andrea Vizzini

[edit]

L'articolo è stato rifiutato, ho aggiunto la traduzione in inglese e desideravo chiedere se qualcuno può darmi dei suggerimenti appropriati per rendere valido l'articolo su Wikipedia.

The article was rejected, I added the English translation and wanted to ask if anyone could give me some appropriate suggestions to make the article valid on Wikipedia. Andrea Vizzini (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Vizzini I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted- although in this case it is up for deletion.
Note that what is acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as it is a different project with its own editors and policies. In this case, you have not provided any sources at all- an article here must summarize the content of independent reliable sources.
If you are associated with this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Izzuddinfz

[edit]

Hi, is there any chance I can publish an article on behalf of my company? Or is it forever prohibited? Izzuddinfz (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Izzuddinfz I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. If you are attempting to edit about your business, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest. It is not absolutely prohibited for you to edit about your business, but it is discouraged, because usually people associated with a topic have great difficulty in writing as Wikipedia requires, especially if they lack experience and knowledge. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Wikipedia is not a place for a business to tell about itself, its offerings, and activities. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. We don't want to know what the business says about itself, or to merely know its activities, we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the business as they see it, not as the business itself might see it. That is usually very difficult for someone associated with the business to see and do; you need to set aside everything you know about the business and limit yourself to only summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage.
My advice is that you go on about the work of your business as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow independent editors to notice the work of your business as described in independent sources and decide to write about it, allowing an article to organically develop. Trying to force the issue yourself is not usually successful. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izzuddinfz: you must make a paid-editing disclosure immediately, as instructed on your talk page.
You may then submit a new draft, but it must be completely non-promotional in tone and content, and based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the business. We are not interested in what your business wants to say about itself, as that is inherently promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 10 June 2024 review of submission by 5066dk

[edit]

why are you rejected my Wikipedia submission 

5066dk (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@5066dk it is an autobiography without any citations to establish notability. Wikipedia is not for posting your resumé. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 June 2024 review of submission by FourbeEnfant

[edit]

Hello, I would need asistance because I want to add an English page of the German Wikipedia page. Sadly, there are not better references than I included but it always get canceled. Can you advise me what to do? 

FourbeEnfant (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FourbeEnfant if there are "not better references" like you said, it's probably not notable. Wikipedia in different languages have different notability standards. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FourbeEnfant: The German article has 48 sources – are none of them independent, secondary and offer in-depth coverage? These guidelines might help; remember a) that Wikipedia is not very interested in what a company has to say about itself so an article must be based on independent sources, and b) that these sources don't have to be in English. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well
it has 48 sources and some of them are secondary, not all, but they are not secondary, but primary about this introductory part I am trying to write. How would it be okay if I write intro based on some article from 1994 in German that only mentions the company by name... FourbeEnfant (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568

[edit]

im not doing anything bad in this draft wiki so i dont want my draft wiki decline Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roblox678956568: if you keep resubmitting the draft without making any attempt at improving it and addressing the decline reasons, it will eventually be rejected with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Antoinetteramseur

[edit]

Requesting assistance with proper references.

The sources I've used are office websites, and news articles. What sources should I use that would be acceptable?

This is the lastest rejection reason: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." Antoinetteramseur (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 10 June 2024 review of submission by 2pxc

[edit]

Hello, I am requesting help with searching for sources to verify Glorb's methods of music production as true, as well as expand the "Reception" section to include milestones in Spotify streams, YouTube views and criticisms from other important articles/people to potentially help the article qualify for WP:NMUSICIAN and demonstrate it from cited sources. Essentially, I am trying to make the article stronger and more encyclopedic through additional sources in that sense and although I seem to have gotten pretty good with Wikitext upon one of my first attempts at using it, I can't do it on my own. Please be sure to DM me on my talk page about making edits outside of what I just mentioned I needed help with. Thanks again for the help! 2pxc. chat 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit to that draft to fix some references, and add a reflist. Generally, asking people not to edit or improve the draft is frowned upon (as Wikipedia is a collaborative site), and most of the helpers here can point to many articles at AfC they have improved/changed prior to being reviewed and accepted.
On the sources front, I've found this PC Mag article, but I'm struggling to come up with much else to help demonstrate notability that isn't already in the article. Generally, we don't accept sites such as "TV Tropes" as these are user-generated to an extent, so we can't verify what is on them is true.
I think the NBC News article helps with notability, I'm not farmiliar with Passionfruit but they do seem to be a realiable source in this area and support notability, but the Northeastern Global News one is a student news source which are not usually considered useful for notability purposes, but appears reliable and is useful to support that bit of the article.
The rest of the articles/sources I can find online appear to be SEO/promo-type pieces, so wouldn't be useful here. Unfortunately, it might well be a case of WP:TOOSOON at present, and need to have a "wait and see" attitude to see what further sources appear or do not appear. The final few sections in that article are currently troublesome as well, and would likely not be allowed in any finished draft as per WP:SYNTH. Mdann52 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. While I understand Wikipedia is a collaborative site, I had some edits of my own to make in the other sections I did not mention I needed assistance with, which are for the most part done now, so hopefully that clears up any confusion on that end, especially for others trying to edit the page. Once again, I do need help to get this to become a fully-fledged article- I just want to ensure that the general quality of it isn't degraded in the process because I worked decently hard to develop this from the ground-up, so to speak.
I like the PC Mag article, I can tell it's a reliable source, and I would recommend using it anywhere that it can prove something about Glorb, for example, if it can prove that the music video for "The Bottom 2" has 12 million views (as of today). As I just mentioned I have also added some sources onto the article as part of the work I wanted to do myself that helps verify presence on Spotify and YouTube as well as the naming convention for Glorb's characters' stage names. As for the TV Tropes source, that came from a previous version of the draft which was abandoned almost 4 months ago, probably due to WP:TOOSOON, and I can agree that it does need to be removed if it is a user-generated source. Even so, though, the fact that so many new articles about Glorb have been pushed out ever since his interview with MoistCr1TiKaL (especially considering the number of sources I have found) makes me think that WP:TOOSOON may not apply here. The final few sections are something I can agree has a lack of sources and wouldn't be allowed in a finished draft, but I don't want to remove it just yet until we are sure that we can't find anything for it or until I put a copy of it in my sandbox to potentially save for later use when there are more sources indicating the further success of Glorb.
Whatever the case, my best advice is to keep looking for sources and this time invite more people to work on the draft and potentially develop the chronology of songs Glorb has made more as part of the "Music career" section.
Thanks again for your edits and feedback! I appreciate the help. 2pxc. dms 01:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Kjbhawk

[edit]

Hi

How do I resubmit for review?

Thanks Kjbhawk (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kjbhawk, you cannot as the draft was rejected, and therefore will not be considered further. If you feel you have fundamentally changed the draft and the rejection reason no longer applies, you can reach out to the rejecting reviewer and see if they will consider it again. Qcne (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Brewster - Wikipedia Page

[edit]

Hi - I was recently hired to create Clark Brewster's wikipedia page draft. I made all of the suggestions the editor, Liance, recommended and resubmitted the draft. This is a bit of a time sensitive publication, so I was hoping to get someone to look at the updated version. Thank you! BDOklahoma24 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Clark Brewster
First things first, Wikipedia does not respect your external deadlines. Second, every claim without a source needs to get sourced or needs to get out. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Blakedes2

[edit]

Hello, i have recently added a new source and i have received a message regarding that there is no content in the reference area. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks Blakedes2 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - see my change here where I've got rid of the error. Wikipedia generally prefers inline citations - you can see more at Help:Cite. Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks again! Blakedes2 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Euroz

[edit]

The professional athlete and executive in question has significant coverage including the USW magazine article that was just published. Euroz (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is based on an interview with him, which is not an independent source, him speaking about himself. Even if that were somehow acceptable, that is still only one source- an article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Errant1905

[edit]

The entry was declined again because "all of these sources appear to be from related parties". However, this is not the case, as the works of Bourrinet, Leonzio, Bourseiller and Peregalli are all examples of independent coverage. Errant1905 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you explained this to the reviewer that made that comment? 331dot (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now but the reviewer is currently on a "wikibreak". Errant1905 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_June_10&oldid=1229293199"