Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 17 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 19 >
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.


March 18

[edit]

00:06, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Shadokp

[edit]

I have worked very hard compiling so much information about this under appreciated actress and model but with IMDB not a reliable source there is really no way to prove that this actress was in any movie even ones she is credited it. In Dracula AD 1972 multiple sources have her and another model named Flannagan uncredited in the movie but there is a Flannagan article in Wikipedia that lists her uncredited for the movie. how is it possible for any uncredited listing in Wikipedia if there is no evidence. Also much of the proof is available in photos and movie posters but none of that is available because of copyright. There are people who have less credits who have pages. It is most frustrating. Thank you for you time in helping me. Shadokp (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadokp I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. "Under appreciated actress" is a strong indicator that she does not yet meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress. Credits are sufficient to establish participation in a film, but Wikipedia articles need more, they need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her that are summarized in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to pubilcize someone or otherwise ensure that they are appreciated- they must first be noticed and get the coverage needed for an article, not the other way around. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows the coverage.
Please see other stuff exists; there are likely many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia(especially about actors) and volunteers don't have time to get around to addressing them all; this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. If you would like to help us, please identify other inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadokp: even if you could find proof that this person had uncredited roles in some films, that would almost certainly not be enough to make her notable. Your task is to demonstrate notability by either the WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR guidelines, and that does require much more than simply proving that she existed and did a bit of acting or modelling work. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I guess there are other places to archive this type of information. Wikipedia becomes less accurate due to the lack of information that is not allowed. So much is going to be lost to history because of no proof. I understand the concept and reasons given but I have to imagine most of what is listed on Wikipedia is taken from other sites or common knowledge. Proving someone existed is a bit odd. Shadokp (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asking you to prove someone existed? Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who has lived, acted or whatever.Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it was worth a try Shadokp (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:57, 18 March 2024 review of submission by RealmUnknown

[edit]

Looking to improve this article, mainly with focus on sourcing. Several of the sources provided are from old magazines and articles I've come across, such as numbers 5, 9 & 10. Perhaps these physical publications ones need to be scanned and uploaded? I've cut and stripped a few items out of the article due to this very issue, as I realize they had no key sources. RealmUnknown (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RealmUnknown: you do not need to scan and upload offline sources, in fact you shouldn't as they're likely to be in copyright; you just need to cite them with sufficient details to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes (see WP:OFFLINE for advice). If it's not obvious from the title what the source is and what it says about and/or how extensively it covers the subject, you should also consider including a short quotation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, hadn't considered a quotation, that may help out a bit. RealmUnknown (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 194.223.23.148

[edit]

I'm requesting to find help to see if someone can help improve the article for me. Plus, it's hard for me to find any other sources by myself. I'll need someone to update the draft for me. 194.223.23.148 (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopaedia is created by volunteers like you. Why do you think somebody might want to come and work on your pet project? (They might - but why would they?)
The heart and soul of a Wikipedia article is its sources. If you have looked, and can't find enough, that is a very good reason for thinking that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 18 March 2024 review of submission by JulioHo

[edit]

Hello all, I just submitted a draft about German company ifm Group and it was rejected due to lack of independent references. Could you please specify what I need to do now as the four independent references I cited seem fine to me. I would be happy for help about this article to provide quality on articles on big German companies as I noticed a lack of relevant references in similar articles, such as: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilz_(company) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turck

Would a translation/link to the German article be helpful and are German references (there are plenty) helpful? Thanks for your help! JulioHo (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References can be in German. The main issue is that you have only summarized the activities of the company, and not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that go into detail about what they see as important about the company and how it meets the definition of a notable company.
Note that the German Wikipedia has different policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily so here. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JulioHo: sources 5 & 6 are just routine business reporting, and 7 & 8 are mere passing mentions. Source 3 is debatable, in that it is more about the CEO than the business, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability.
If you have found other articles without sufficient evidence of notability, you're very welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, to initiate deletion proceedings. Either way, the existence of such articles is no reason to create more similar problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for clarifying! I'll dive into that matter and will search for other more reliable sources! JulioHo (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Nihimba

[edit]

Why has this been rejected? Nihimba (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihimba: User:Nihimba/sandbox/HEBO Consult wasn't rejected. It was declined (two years ago!) for being promotional, and deleted six months later, either for the same reason or for having been not edited for 6 months (I'm not quite sure which). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 4Bt'tjes

[edit]

I would really want this to be published, this is a very dum reason but i get bullied and maybe they will find this funny, I hope? Thank you very much for taking this in to consideration. Ps it did not include any false information regarding the subject. 4Bt'tjes (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4Bt'tjes: please understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about your mates. Try a social media platform or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what if I really made a honest page about him? Not as a joke, it would still be information about somthing/someone. I would write about him in a profesional way. No jokes, just a life story about him. Just like there are enough story's about Kanye West and so on. I would really appreciate you taking this into considiration. I see this as a chance to change some things on the internet. Not everybody has to make a video on tiktok or a Reel on instagram. Just a honest story on here. Now that I tought about it u could actually make a different app about my idea. U could call it My Story or somthing like that. Ps my first submission really didn't include any fals information. 4Bt'tjes (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and then Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really didn't help 4Bt'tjes (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article summarises what independent reliable sources have published about a subject. That is all. If there are such sources about your subject, then an article may be possible: if there are not, then no article is possible.
The purposes you have mentioned above have nothing to do with Wikipedia, as explained in various sections of the first page linked above. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Viveliot

[edit]

hello, i need more information about reliable sources. Viveliot (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viveliot: click on the 'reliable sources' link in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Sadikul Masduq

[edit]

How can I solve this? Sadikul Masduq (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadikul Masduq: you cannot 'solve this'; the draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C

[edit]

Hi! I would like to improve the draft and resubmit it for Aniket Bharti. The draft was declined on March 12, 2024, by Randompersonediting (talk) due to insufficient references that demonstrate the subject's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're welcome to improve this draft, as it hasn't been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Christiana Stanley

[edit]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've recreated the draft for Abubakar Sani. I noticed it was deleted for potential advertising - I apologize for that, as I'm new to Wiki. I've made some changes to address this concern by removing questionable material and the citation to the website. Additionally, I've added some extra information that I believe could be helpful. I'd like more specific advice on how to go about successfully getting this article published in the main space. ~Ana (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Christiana Stanley: where have you created it? I can't see anything in your contributions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift response, Please find a link to the draft below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Abubakar_Sani ~Ana (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Ganisario

[edit]

Could you kindly tell me why article was rejected. Also, please provide some quick advice Ganisario (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is located at User:Ganisario/sandbox. Your draft is in Italian, this is the English Wikipedia, a different project. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganisario: presumably you mean User:Ganisario/sandbox? It was declined because it's not in English, as it says in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got no traction with the Italia wiki, deafening silence, not even a rejection. With you I got prompt replies. Any suggestion? What if I change the page to English? Ganisario (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in English is a must; but the standards here are likely stricter than the Italian Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganisario: it looks like you've tried to submit your sandbox draft on the Italian Wikipedia, but haven't done it correctly (I don't know for sure, but I expect they don't use the same subst:submit template as we do here). That might explain why you didn't get any response. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by AlanP93

[edit]

I was immediately denied after clicking submit for a new page. I believe this was for citation reasons. I'd love any feedback on how to make the page better and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. AlanP93 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlanP93 I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed. You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
The draft just tells about the business and its offerings. Wikipedia articles should primarily 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. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331Dot. Regarding the conflict of interest declaration, I am currently employed by the company in question. I understand the importance of maintaining neutrality and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for content creation. I understand that I was supposed to disclose this beforehand, so I added a tag to my profile. Regarding the draft, I also understand that it needs improvement to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am thankful for your response, I am new at this, and I will work on revising the draft to ensure it summarizes information from only from independent sources. I added the products offered mainly because that's what the company was famous for in particular. I will review the guidelines more thoroughly and make the necessary revisions to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards. Could you please (if able) tell me what else you would have on the page? I sort of just copied the formats of other Wikipages I saw of Gravic's partners Scantron and HPE. I'd take any and all advice. I don't wish to break any rules, nor do I want to publish a subpar page. AlanP93 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As an employee, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the draft, quite frankly it needs to be largely rewritten. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Products shouldn't be discussed that in depth. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also be advised it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See WP:OSE. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all really great feedback! I saved it all. Thank you. Would you mind if I rewrite it and show it to you first? Probably won't be ready for a week or so. AlanP93 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Evaluate every one of your sources against 42: pretty well all of them will fail.
Absolutely the first task in creating an article is to find several sources that do meet those criteria, because if they don't exist (as is the case for most companies), then it does not meet NORG, and no article is possible.
If you can find suitable sources, a good way to proceed (especially if you are connected with the subject) is to forget absolutely everything you know about the subject and write a summary of what those independent sources say.
Your draft is highly promotional, in that it says what Gravic wants people to know. Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what Gravic wants people to know. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine,
Thanks for your response. I saved it all with the links. I don't want to make a puff piece or anything, just to establish the company a page and show it's notable. It was my first Wiki page and I see I fell short. Thanks so much for helping me reorganize my thoughts. I put the cart before the horse, I wrote an article first then plugged in sources. I should compile all of my sources first, then build off them. You gave me a lot to think about, thank you. AlanP93 (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Some random account on this website

[edit]

Need help improving the article if by any means nessecary to be accepted. ＲＡＮＤＯＭ ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be worked on "by any means necessary"?
Prior reviews must remain on the draft. It's going to be difficult for you to overcome WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Toxopid

[edit]

I am having trouble finding even just one source for this polyhedron. So far, the only mention I've seen of it anywhere on the internet is in the Wikipedia article for cupolae. I would love to get some help finding a good source. Toxopid (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toxopid the Help Desk does not generally assist with deveoping drafts. We are here to mostly to answer questions about the process or if a draft is declined or rejected. If you don't have access to scholarly journals, it will likely be difficult but you can try Google Books or Google Scholar. You can also ask for help at WP:WikiProject Mathematics. S0091 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will make sure to check that out. Toxopid (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Wikiwriterhippo

[edit]

It was not approved because "This draft is a copyright violation collection." Can someone please help me understand what exactly the violation is? Wikiwriterhippo (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwriterhippo pinging @Johannes Maximilian to explain but I think it might be because the images violate copyright unless you are the artist. S0091 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the pictures. Very obvious copyvio. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I own these pictures. There are no copyright violations as I own them. How can this be solved? Wikiwriterhippo (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiwriterhippo: it's still a problem even if you own them, because a) we don't know that, and b) by making them available you must release your rights. If you wish to donate your proprietary content, see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can donate these images and will work on them soon. For the proof that I own them, I have no way to prove that my camera was used, but these images were the same images I used when I created and managed Rudolf Gonzalez Art Facebook page. You will see these images there. All of the images there I own.
Would this suffice? Wikiwriterhippo (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After I published an article through Article Wizards, how can I know whether it's in review?

[edit]

I just published an article through Article Wizards, however I didn't see the yellow box that shows Review waiting, please be patient. Do this mean I didn't submit successfully or it take time to be reviewed. Alicey2121 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to submit Draft:Daniel Seah failed, because you inserted the "subst:submit" formula within <nowiki> ... </nowiki> tags, so it was not effective.
You then moved the draft to Daniel Seah, which you are entitled to do, but it is not recommended for inexperienced editors.
I suspect that very soon it will get either deleted, or moved back to draft, for the reasons which another editor has already put at the top. The most obvious problems I see are:
  1. It can't decide whether it is about Seah or about Digital Domain. It needs to be about one or the other
  2. It is highly promotional. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
  3. Few of the sources appear to be independent of Digital Domain.
ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_March_18&oldid=1215401408"