Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 30 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 2 >
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.


May 1

[edit]

03:08, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 202.134.9.153

[edit]

Can you review the article early? Major improvements has been taken.202.134.9.153 (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't do 'fast track reviews' here at the help desk. As it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,439 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Dongiri. Ajay Kumar

[edit]

What is the reason behind the rejection Dongiri. Ajay Kumar (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept copyright violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate what you consider to be copyright violations. Thank you. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking? Over 90% of it was copyvio, and has now been removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As DoubleGrazing says, the violating content has since been forcibly removed from the draft. As to your sources, they're terrible - one is a Google search, which we cannot cite (too sparse) and I'm sceptical the other meets WP:MEDRS, which is the sourcing standard that applies here (since we're discussing psychiatry here). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 1 May 2024 review of submission by TrevorGlynLocke

[edit]

New to Wikipedia, I might not have understood all that I have read. Am looking for major errors in the text I have made. If anyone would like to offer guidance, this would be greatly appreciated. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the advice given, namely... unreliable sources which include Instagram, Waterstones, YouTube, Discogs, Amazon and assorted blogs have not been removed. See WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources and see WP:YFA and WP:MOS for general help with article format. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TrevorGlynLocke I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 1 May 2024 review of submission by ناشناس879

[edit]

What do I do to get my article published? I've done everything you asked، but every time the article is rejected. ناشناس879 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ناشناس879: this draft has indeed been finally (not "every time", but eventually) rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Ethan Cale B. Domugho

[edit]

Why did my article get declined? Ethan Cale B. Domugho (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethan Cale B. Domugho: it wasn't merely declined, but actually rejected. That was for lack of evidence of notability, as stated in the rejection notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 159.242.125.170

[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.

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 also which is contentious as best as highlighted here on a 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.

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 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing this with Tvx1? If you haven't, I suggest you do so, as rejection appeals would normally be made to the rejecting reviewer directly. If you don't get a response or can't reach a mutual understanding, you can then come back here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As you can see I am an IP user so it is a little harder to hold conversations, but from the talk page and their previous deletion attempts it is clear that this editor does not view a compromise as possible otherwise that would have been my first port of call.
Other people in the talk however have made appeals which have been ignored, and this draft was denied with quite some haste with no time to discuss it on the page which doesn't help with this. If your advice is still the same, let me know and I can make an attempt.
Thanks! 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certainly worth making an attempt, rather than assuming nothing would come of it, even if it only ends up proving that assumption correct. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, hopefully it will lead somewhere because having one of these articles missing from a full set of 6 just feels odd. As other editors note, it should be all 6 or none and currently having an odd one out makes for an inconsistency which seems strange. And apologies for taking your time! 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise at all, that's what I'm here for. Hope you find a resolution, but if not, do come back and we'll try to help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 86.18.72.59

[edit]

How does the article lack reliable sources when I cite newspaper articles and academic books mentioning the subject matter? 86.18.72.59 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't declined for lack of reliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability (which requires sources to be among other things reliable, but there is much more to it).
That said, the offline sources are also cited in a way that makes at least some of them difficult to identify for verification. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with sufficient bibliographical details, including page numbers, to enable them to be reliably identified. See WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

[edit]

Filing on behalf of DC1973 (talk · contribs). This autobiographical draft from late October 2023 (under G13 at this writing) has now become the basis of Draft:Wranglestone, a refocus/rework discussing his debut novel. Having tagged the latter with {{Copied}} on its talk page, I have half a mind to turn the precursor into a redirect before things get out of hand--but I don't want to take chances until I'm sure the coast is clear. Is this ploy an acceptable resolution? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slgrandson: are you saying you'd turn Draft:Darren Charlton (author) into a redir in order to preserve its edit history, but otherwise effectively abandon it by so doing? And then go forth with the Wranglestone draft instead? Or did I catch the wrong end of this particular stick? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting for preservation reasons. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Founderofthecity1234

[edit]

Hi, Can someone help me get this draft approved. If you look at other organizations doing the same work the articles are all the same as in this draft. I don't understand why this one keeps getting denied. look up feeding America or other local food banks. why is this criteria for this organization different for others. also this page was active for over 1 year previously Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Founderofthecity1234: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I unfortunately do not have the time to do a deep-dive on your sources at the moment, but will likely do so tonight after I get off work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Founderofthecity1234: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
This looks like a case of the chaff choking the wheat. Read Help:Referencing for beginners and get rid of all the sources above that are useless or nonfunctional. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these are the same type of articles. shouldn't you flag these pages also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_County_Community_Food_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Harvest_of_Silicon_Valley
I can continue down the list. I am bringing these to your attention, will you go now and take these pages down? Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Founderofthecity1234 Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen could also be inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This is why each draft or article is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
If you are literally the founder of this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. Please disclose soon. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

[edit]

Filing on behalf of Azazel23 (talk · contribs)--wherever he's been since last July. Another one close to the G13 dumpster, discussing a Brisbanehey, Bluey fans! rock group of recent vintage (2008-2023). Turned down for not meeting WP:NBAND, despite its length and structure; I'm sure there's something in the sources that made it miss out, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone remind me exactly why? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_1&oldid=1222776518"