Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 10 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 12 >
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 11

[edit]

05:10, 11 May 2024 review of submission by FarisMuhtaseb

[edit]

Where to start search for sufficient references and what if there is not enough to cover my article? FarisMuhtaseb (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FarisMuhtaseb: sounds like you've first written what you wanted, and are now trying to find sources that support what you've said. This is called WP:BACKWARD editing. What you should do is first find a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, summarise what they've said, cite each source against the information it has provided. This gives you the appropriate content, references, and proof of notability all in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And when I say "summarise what they've said", I mean in your own words, not by copypasting content verbatim. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Iarainn

[edit]

Hello—I'm puzzled by why this draft has been rejected for a third time. Multiple secondary and reliable sources have been provided, including an SFX article focused specifically on the subject, in response to comments made in the first and second rejection. Her debut novel has its own Wikipedia entry, so I can't quite work out why the author herself is deemed not to qualify for one. Any guidance to help get this through would be appreciated, as I feel El-Arifi has brought a great deal to the fantasy genre and that contribution should be recognised. Iarainn (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iarainn A book can merit a Wikipedia article, but not its author, if it is the book that receives coverage in independent reliable sources and not the author themselves. Interviews do not contribute to notability, as that is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 11 May 2024 review of submission by ZDISK

[edit]

Could you please provide specific details about how this page needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards? I need to see how it reads like an essay. It summarizes and cites peer-reviewed scientific literature - there are no opinions in the piece unless one takes issue with the word "seminal." The last section describes two alternative models for the mechanism of polyspermy block, but this is an accurate summation of an unresolved and actively researched area. I am happy to continue to improve this page, but I need help understanding the problem. ZDISK (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters Wikipedia articles usually start with the title and a brief explanation of what makes it a notable topic, not a rambling general introduction like yours. Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and such a start (or 'lead' section) would normally also set the context, so that the reader knows straight away what the topic is and how it relates to others.
There exists already an article on polyspermy, which covers blocking mechanisms. Why would we need another article on polyspermy blocking in this particular species, specifically – is there something unique about it? If so, could that not be included in the African clawed frog article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 11 May 2024 review of submission by 103.197.204.25

[edit]

help me 

103.197.204.25 (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to be more specific, what help do you require?
That said, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage ("critiques" in my signature below).
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:48, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Snipertron12

[edit]

I can't find any more sources for Picklenash Junior School. Snipertron12 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: then it probably means that school is not notable enough to justify an article. The vast majority of schools aren't, so that's pretty much the default position anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats mainly notable about the school is that its the only Primary school in Newent. And due to Newent being a small town, not many articles talk about Newent. Snipertron12 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a more specific definition of notability than what you're using, unfortunately. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

[edit]

The only sources that I have for this topic is some Tweets and the Bulletin Awards website. I already know that Twitter is unreliable. But I know I can't use the Bulletin Awards Website either. What should I do? Rincemermaid (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do until independent reliable sources provide sufficient coverage of this award. No amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 11 May 2024 review of submission by 5.197.242.72

[edit]

What kind of proof do they require? 5.197.242.72 (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Herosarm

[edit]

This article has been repeatedly denied, but similar articles for other businesses are approved. There is not any superlative information or advertisement included and it is a factual article on a popular Canadian business. Herosarm (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. See other stuff exists. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. It is a poor idea to use any random article as a model; use those that are classified as good articles. If you want to help us remove other inappropriate articles, please identify them so we can take action. We need the help.
Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a business nust 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. You only have two sources, one your own website, another a mere announcement of a routine business activity, nothing that goes into detail about what others say makes your business important/significant/influential as a business as they see it. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Herosarm

[edit]

I have updated the citations. There are several third party news outlets discussing this business. This is a notable business in Ontario Canada. Herosarm (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Herosarm: you say there are several news outlets covering this, yet your draft only cites one, and a very local one at that.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to your previous one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_11&oldid=1224376152"