Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 12 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 14 >
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.


November 13

[edit]

00:29, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Uzbek1992

[edit]

No Uzbek1992 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzbek1992: Stop submitting blank drafts and wasting people's time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Purplewhalethunder

[edit]

It's been quiet long, is there another way to speed the review? Purplewhalethunder (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplewhalethunder: it has been three weeks, and as you can see on top of the draft it says we have over 1,000 pending drafts and wait times can be up to six weeks. There is no way to expedite this. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Purplewhalethunder (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Wikimostcar

[edit]

what is the problem coming up Wikimostcar (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimostcar: no problem. This draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 13 November 2024 review of submission by 139.228.5.8

[edit]

i wanna write about dandys world beacuse it doesnt exist yet :[ 139.228.5.8 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IP editor, Wikipedia only hosts articles about things that exist and are notable. qcne (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

I need help editing this as I cannot do it all myself TobyB (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, the onus is very much on you to produce an acceptable draft. You can ask specific questions here, of course. That said, I don't see much chance for this draft, as there isn't the slightest indication of notability, and it is quite promotional in tone and content. My advice would be to drop this, and come back once the subject has been covered extensively in secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,thanks TobyB (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 13 November 2024 review of submission by LooteraGamer01

[edit]

gamer life LooteraGamer01 (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LooteraGamer01: that's not a question, and your draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Marzada

[edit]

I am trying to understand the reason for the rejection since the article is a translation of an already existing article on the Norwegian Wikipedia pages. Therefore I struggle to understand why the article was approved for the Norwegian Wikipedia Pages and rejected here?

Here is the link to the Norwegian entry: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankert_Thuland

Also, the rejection states that I should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Well, the article does list a total of 14 published sources.

Finally the rejection states that peacock terms that promote the subject should be avoided. Can someone please tell me where such terms were used in the article? Marzada (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marzada: I haven't looked at the sources yet, but just to say that each language version of Wikipedia is a totally separate project with their own rules and requirements; what is acceptable on the Norwegian version may not be acceptable here, and v.v. The English-language version has the strictest requirements for referencing and notability, that I'm aware of at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft is unreferenced, and we don't therefore know where this information comes from. So when it says "he had good German skills", or that he "was central to the mapping of national traitors", whose opinions are those?
Also, some of the sources don't support the information: ref #1 just points to the home page of the archives; #3 is a grave database; and #6 doesn't seem to mention Thuland at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Ok that explains at least this part why there might be different standards. Can someone please be more specific about what exactly needs to be changed?

Well, Marzada, for example, most of the first paragraph, about his earlier life, and the next ("Espionage activities") appears to be unreferenced. Why should a reader believe it? --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Holala13

[edit]

we want phigros to have visibility ;-; Holala13 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should use social media, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ফয়সাল ফাহিদ

[edit]

Request for Page Publication Dear Wikipedia Editors, I have created a draft article on Mizanur Rahman Azhari, a prominent Islamic scholar and speaker from Bangladesh. The article provides a comprehensive overview of his life, contributions, and public recognition based on reliable and independent sources. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including verifiable information from credible references. The language used is neutral, and I have ensured that the content follows Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and reliability standards. I kindly request your review of this draft and consideration for its publication on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, [Foysal Fahid] ফয়সাল ফাহিদ (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ফয়সাল ফাহিদ: you don't ask a question, but just to say that this draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Vijaysharma1231

[edit]

can you please guide me what all materials I can use to make it notable ? the person has been on multiple media channels and print media and has a google panel also when we him on search on google Vijaysharma1231 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijaysharma1231: given how many times it has been tried, and failed, to create an article on this subject, under various titles, my advice would be to drop the stick and find another subject to edit about.
I posted earlier a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, but I noticed that you haven't responded to it. Could you do that now, please? Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ফয়সাল ফাহিদ

[edit]

Everything is fine here, and this person also has a Bengali page ফয়সাল ফাহিদ (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. If this person meets the requirements of the Bengali Wikipedia, you should focus your efforts there. I'm not entirely clear on why the draft was rejected as I don't speak Bengali, but please ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Bwagner1230

[edit]

What sources should I add to get this approved? I'm creating this article as a request from my internship director and I'm confused on what else I need to add. I cited the only direct quote used in it, please let me know. Thanks. Bwagner1230 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just primary sourced advertising NOT an encyclopaedia article? WE need significant coverage in independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bwagner1230 You will need to make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure if you are editing as part of an internship(even if you do not receive money; the work experience is the "compensation"). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that you read WP:BOSS and have your director read it too. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bwagner1230: 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. ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ServeAduke

[edit]

I'm hoping to get more feedback about my draft, which was declined a few minutes after I posted it. The explanation provided was that the "submission appears to read more like an advertisement" and "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." Having reviewed editorial guidelines before I started drafting, I was careful to write in what I felt was neutral, encyclopedic style and to only cite reputable sources (e.g., TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Bloomberg, The Verge, and Quartz) that cover the subject in detail. The fast rejection took me by surprise and I want to make sure I'm fixing the right things before trying again.

I'm hoping an editor here can help me understand (a) whether Serve is notable and (b) whether the draft could be updated in some way to make it acceptable. I don't want to keep hitting a brick wall and wasting editors' time. As I'm an employee of Serve, I get that editors have to be careful that the draft isn't promotional or biased, and I'm open to feedback just struggling with how to apply the initial notes I've received.

Thank you for your time! I hope I don't come across as defensive here. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia in the past few weeks and I'm genuinely curious about how editorial decisions like this are made. ServeAduke (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ServeAduke I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. You have made a very common mistake that paid editors make, in that you have summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company; that does not establish that the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company is met. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic(a company, in this case). We aren't interested in what the company says about itself, only in what others wholly unconnected with the topic say about it. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Please see WP:BOSS, and if you were asked to be here, have your superiors read it too. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in this draft process, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, 331dot. The linked notability page states that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The sources I cite throughout the draft check those boxes. Articles like this one in VentureBeat, this one in Bloomberg, and this one in Quartz all provide detailed profiles of Serve and explain exactly why the company is notable. VentureBeat and Bloomberg are included on Wikipedia's list of Reliable and Perennial sources and are specifically identified as being reliable. Quartz is widely cited across Wikipedia and was also identified as being reliable here. I tried to do my Wikipedia homework before putting this draft together. Again, this is significant reporting by staff writers at multiple prominent outlets, not just passing mentions or routine coverage and I aimed to write up my draft based on what was in those pieces. Is there an example you can point me to that would help me see what a great new page looks like? Or can you provide more specific feedback about how this draft could be improved? I do appreciate the engagement here. ServeAduke (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ServeAduke The best articles to use as examples or models are those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting- unlike any random article which could itself be inappropriate and has just not been dealt with yet.
I've used the term "article" deliberately- it's better to think of the encyclopedia content as articles and not the broader "pages"; an article is a page but not every page is an article. This may affect your mindset somewhat.
The sources you list here are:
  • an announcement of a product, not significant coverage of the company as it is a routine business activity(to release a product)
  • an announcement that the company was spun off of Uber, another routine business activity(acquisitions/sales/spinoffs of companies or parts of companies)
  • a description that the company was taken public, another routine business activity(going on/off the stock market is common)
None of these establish notability. That isn't because of the provenance of the sources themselves, but their content.
I get that you think that what your company does is important- but we need others to say that- and not just for its routine activities. Ford Motor Company doesn't merit an article because it manufactures and sells vehicles, it does because many independent sources have written about the company and what they see as its influence on various sectors(economy, history, manfacturing), not what it sees as its own importance. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGDEPTH may help you. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional feedback, 331dot. The Ford Motor Company example you provide illustrates your point about notability, although only a fraction of the companies and brands covered in Wikipedia have had the impact of Ford (or Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Walmart, etc). That’s a very high standard, and the notability essay you linked only requires that “a company... is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” That said, I understand that significance is in the eye of the beholder and I could work to share more coverage that goes beyond what might be considered routine business activity?
Overall, appreciate the good advice and I’ll move the draft into my userspace and update it again once Serve has additional coverage that more clearly meets that criteria. Thank you again for the response. ServeAduke (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 13 November 2024 review of submission by SanjanaSinghRajput

[edit]

My submission was unreasonably rejected, and the reason given was absolutely false and incorrect, as the sources cited were totally independent and well-known sources. I added a total of 37 references, and they were all genuine and reliable. Additionally, the topic (person) has also been adequately recognised both offline and online, as evident from a simple Google search with the keywords "Shivanshu K. Shivanshu" or "Who is Shivanshu K. Srivastava?" and a plethora of print articles and coverage of the writer. The online sources are so many and also the print records are much more than what is available online. Thus, the decision of Charlie who deleted this must be reviewed. Therefore, I request an appeal to a higher moderator / editor / team of Wikipedia. SanjanaSinghRajput (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "higher moderator". You actually have too many references. Fewer high quality references are preferred to a large number of low quality ones. Most of your sources are things he wrote, which are not independent sources. It's not clear to me how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. We don't just want documentation of his work, we need sources with in depth discussion on why he is important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SanjanaSinghRajput I have left what I hope oyu will find a helpful comment on the draft in order to help you sort out your referencing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Alwasil2021

[edit]

First, thank you for taking my question I am the Permanent Representative (ambassador) to the United Nations. I would like to post my wikipedia page about me that was drafted usings the proper sources. Alwasil2021 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is only sourced to the UN website. Any article about you needs to primarily summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. While not absolutely forbidden, I would caution you about writing about yourself at all, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alwasil2021 Forgive me, but "Do you know who I am?" fails on so many levels. The primary failure is that this is the internet and we have therefore no idea who you are. While there is no reason disbelieve you (though why would a Permanent Representative (ambassador) to the United Nations be creating their autobiography here?), there is also no reason to believe you. I'm sure you can see the point.
An article about Abdulaziz Alwasil must still pass WP:BIO whoever writes it. Looking at the draft dispassionately, this draft does not verify that. It has to. Otherwise it will not be accepted. So please go to work with a will and create a draft which passes the acceptance criteria. I am sure you would not wish to be treated any differently from any other editor.
We require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources which are about Abdulaziz Alwasil before a draft on the gentleman can be accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_13&oldid=1258519522"