Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 13 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 15 >
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 14

[edit]

01:59, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 2806:2A0:C0C:84F5:FCA5:EAD9:F745:E1AD

[edit]

Good Day,

I put together everything found about an artist online who I think deserves a wikipedia, but not sure what i'm doing wrong.

Best, Daniel Betancourt 2806:2A0:C0C:84F5:FCA5:EAD9:F745:E1AD (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing wrong is that you're not telling us where this information came from; the draft is entirely unreferenced. Please cite your sources, see WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably also making the common beginner mistake of writing what you know. Wikipedia doesn't care what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). Every single piece of information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, or it doesn't go into the article. Moreover, the great majority of information should come from sources wholly unconnected with the subject - not her, not her agents, not her producers, and not based on interviews or press releases. Unless you can find several sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42, give up, and work on a different subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Larkmean

[edit]

How do we cite reputable sources for players appearing on many reputable records and in many reputable tours, when these details are only published in 1) social media posts, 2) the venue's website (but taken down once the date has passed), 3) local news, 4) album credit websites (which can be edited by anyone), and 5) album credits (on streaming services, which don't have webpages to cite)?

I'm finding I want to document players whose careers and contributions are notable. Do I need to find press about them, or is the prolific contributions on records enough if I cite correctly?

Any advice is appreciated! Larkmean (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Larkmean: on what basis are you asserting notability, if there are no reliable and independent sources to support this? Merely appearing on records or tours is unlikely to make someone notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the same happened to me 41.173.247.14 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise, @Larkmean, is 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. If such sources do not exist, then there is literally nothing which can be put in the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 41.173.247.14

[edit]

I'm new at writing articles 41.173.247.14 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question; did you have one in mind?
Your draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. There is nothing to indicate that the subject is at all notable, and the draft is also not written in an appropriate manner for an encyclopaedia. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, you may wish to try LinkedIn or similar platforms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Thaokin98

[edit]

Can you tell me where my article violates so I can edit it? Thaokin98 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thaokin98: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you give me the instructions about posting in wiki? Thaokin98 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thaokin98: the process you followed was technically correct, but please note that Wikipedia cannot be used to promote anything. See WP:GOLDENRULE for advice on creating appropriate content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Chefofchef

[edit]

hello, I just submitted this for an up-and-coming chef and am unsure why it was rejected thank you. Chefofchef (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is thoroughly promotional and completely unsourced. "Up and coming" people almost never merit articles- a person must have "already arrived" and be noticed in order to merit an article. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia defines the word. See Referencing for beginners for help with writing citations.
Please disclose your connection with him, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Bhaskarsah123

[edit]

hey i am a beginner who want to create my first article. i dont know why it is rejected please help me 

Bhaskarsah123 (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhaskarsah123: this is a completely unreferenced draft, which presents no evidence or even suggestion that the subject is notable. Also, it isn't written as a viable encyclopaedia article draft, but rather a CV/resume. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bhaskarsah123. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Postcinematicbodies

[edit]

Draft article declined - received feedback that "Sources should be reliable and may include newspapers and magazines (notable national and international), peer reviewed journals"

I fixed a broken link to a peer review journal that covers the organization in a paragraph and a footnote and added a link to an award I found. I'm curious if this would help with the notability issues and I should resubmit or if I should continue collecting references?

In terms of in depth coverage - there's one peer reviewed journal, a leading digital arts magazine and a leading European fashion magazine in addition to a government award. Postcinematicbodies (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Postcinematicbodies More is not necessarily better. Check what you have and be critical. Make sure each passes WP:42. I am not saying that any miss the mark, I have only skimmed them. In general fewer submissions and better work between them wins the acceptance race. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Jedav21

[edit]

Jedav21 submission 2nd November Hello,

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and leaving feedback.

I fully understand your comment on the writing style and I will endeavour to rewrite the draft in a more encyclopedia appropriate style before resubmitting. But your other comment (relating references), I may need a little more help with if that's okay. I was hoping that you could expand on what specifically you want me to do to make the draft acceptable in relation to the point raised as I do not quite understand. I believe this topic refers to an important societal inequality that deserves a wikipedia article so any help you can offer me in getting this published would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Jedav21 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoconutOctopus Jedav21 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jedav21 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. You seem to be addressing the reviewer specifically, you should do that on their user talk page, User talk:CoconutOctopus. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you Jedav21 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 142.167.9.219

[edit]

The draft article is about a lady that holds a world record. Why is it being rejected? There are no promotional intensions in there. 142.167.9.219 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer noted, the sources are not significant coverage of the subject. Guinness World Records are subjective and in and of themselves do not establish notability. We're not talking about athletic achievements like the fastest 100m run that are easily measured and receive much coverage. There needs to be significant coverage of this person and how their seeking/holding the "world record" makes the person important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Ermwhatthesigma0

[edit]

I'm not completely sure why I was rejected, I'm just wondering why. Ermwhatthesigma0 (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ermwhatthesigma0, Wikipedia only hosts articles about topics we deem "notable"- we're not a repository for your own personal worldbuilding projects. qcne (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like something you made up? Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 14 November 2024 review of submission by TurtlesLiveLong

[edit]

Hello, I spent hours working on a contribution that fits the criteria of "notable" and it was immediately rejected. There has been coverage of this organization in the NY Times, Cheddar News, and the Washington Post among other smaller publications like the Harvard Law School's Cyber Clinic Review. The organization's report was utilized by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Labor, and Pensions. Senators Mazie Hirono, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Adam Schiff signed a letter to the FTC asking it to investigate Meta based on the center's investigation of their advertising practices. This is my first article so maybe I didn't format something properly? I have more sources than I put in the article but I thought those were notable organizations. I cannot understand why it was rejected. Can someone please help me understand? Did I not format it properly? Thank you. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I spent hours working on a new article on the Center for Intimacy Justice that fits the criteria of "notable" and it was immediately rejected. There has been coverage of this organization in the NY Times, Cheddar News, and the Washington Post among other smaller publications like the Harvard Law School's Cyber Clinic Review. The organization's report was utilized by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Labor, and Pensions. Senators Mazie Hirono, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Adam Schiff signed a letter to the FTC asking it to investigate Meta based on the center's investigation of their advertising practices. This is my first article so maybe I didn't format something properly? I have more sources than I put in the article but I thought those were notable organizations. I cannot understand why it was rejected. Can someone please help me understand? Did I not format it properly?

I am still trying to figure out wikipedia and very confused on how to even submit this question. I couldn't submit it without tying it to a current article... apologies for confusion about the page title for the FTC. Thank you. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TurtlesLiveLong Please don't start a new thread for every post you make, just edit this existing section. (it should say "edit" in the section header) 331dot (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLone Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please see the message I left at the top of your draft(under the decline message). 331dot (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some clarification. I saw your comment about the article describing its actions vs the center itself. Should I draft the article to be about the report instead, since that is largely where the coverage is? I went back and added in three additional citations for CNN, NY Times, and Adweek. There are many others I can reference but those seem to me to be news sites that Wikipedia accepts as reputable. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLong It sounds to me you want to write more about the topic of equity in people's intimate lives more so than this organization itself. That's fine- I would just refocus the draft to be about the subject as a whole and not the organization. I might do some searches to see if there aren't already existing Wikipedia articles that such information could go on(it seems like there could be, but there might not be too) before undertaking the work on your draft. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot. I guess if you put it that way, the topic is about algorithms that meta has in their advertising policies that reject ads with certain words related to female anatomy and not male anatomy. I was surprised there was nothing on Wikipedia about this so thought I'd try to contribute. I am really confused on what gets on Wikipedia to be honest. I am trying to assume positive intent here from your comments but not sure of your intent. There's a lot of crap on here. This article was well thought out. Why bother contributing hours of your life to this website if this is the kind of gatekeeping weirdness there is? Not wasting any more time on this site. Consider this moot. Moving on with my life to more productive contributions to humanity. My eyes are wide-open to the truth behind Wikipedia. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TurtlesLiveLong: The drafting process as it exists today wasn't made mandatory until 2018, and didn't exist full-stop before 2011. There's a very good chance a lot of the articles you're complaining about were first started either in the pre-2011 "publish and be damned" days or were created in mainspace directly between 2011 and the consensus for WP:ACPERM in 2018. Our standards, and enforcement of those standards, has only gotten stricter over time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That may be the case however as a writer and avid reader I thought maybe I could contribute to this communal human knowledge project known as wikipedia. I am finding it completely tedious unfortunately. There is little nuance on this platform when it comes to the rejections and declines. I have been reading the "talk" pages and clearly this is a massive issue here. I worked to outline an article that follows the "rules" and read many of the arcane pages about this. I wasted tons of time trying to navigate this platform. I heard Wikipedia needs more folks to help out. I can see why. It's a massive mess and when you put hours into something to have it rejected in seconds and then be told later that it's because the Center I wrote about wasn't notable, yet their findings they produced from their report IS notable... I don't know what else to do. I am sure there are good people on this platform. I can see that. I also see there's a lot of petty folks holding power. Thoughtful folks who have good intent like me can easily and quickly get worn out. It makes me sad to know that and see the insides of this platform. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being told I'm petty. I'm trying to help you. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLong you do not have to use the WP:AFC process you are free to publish the article directly to main space, but beware it could be sent to WP:AFD if you do. AFC is intended to sift out the articles that are likely to survive a deletion process there is useful info here Wikipedia:AFCPURPOSE. Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not calling you petty. There seems to be a lot of pettiness on this site on the Talk pages is what I am referring to. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just navigating this platform seems to take hours to learn. What gives? It is designed to eliminate instead of include. When the platform is so challenging to navigate it makes engaging with folks confusing and contributing futile. It also means that only certain subset of humans who have the time and/or skillset to navigate a platform like this end up contributing, thereby limiting the number of voices that can contribute. I am a newbie just processing the hard reality of what seems to be the gem I thought was wikipedia. Consider me disillusioned. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLong As Theroadislong said, you are free to place the draft in the encyclopedia yourself, but you would be rolling the dice that it wouldn't be nominated for deletion. Part of the reason for the existence of this process is for the opportunity for experienced users to see the draft before it is actually an article, and to reduce the number of articles brought up for deletion.
There is such a thing as it being too easy to contribute to something. There is a learning curve, a steep one, and that's not entirely unintentional. Part of the reason you previously saw Wikipedia as a "gem" is precisely because of standards and policies that have developed over the years, resulting in one of the top viewed websites on this planet. I see that you made a few edits before writing your draft; we usually recommend that newer/inexperienced editors spend much time making many edits before diving in to the very difficult process of creating a new article. This allows for the editor to learn Wikipedia policies as to sourcing, content, and style. Would you prefer that we tell you what you want to hear, or to help you actually learn how we do things here?
I'm happy to provide you with further guidance if you're still interested. I provided you with one possible pathway forward already(refocus the article to be about the topic broadly and not just the organization); alternatively you can find sources that discuss the importance of the organization itself. I'm sorry you haven't had a good experience. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have found this interface really cold to navigate as a newbie, and honestly really isolating. There's a lot to read and navigate in a less than intuitive platform. I understand the need for gatekeeping, and verification, etc. I think what is challenging me is the amount of time needed to navigate the platform itself, not even the rules. Figuring out how to do anything around here is... confusing. Then you finally get to post something and within seconds get "declined". It's really deflating, and when people have lives to live and jobs to do and children to raise and aging parents to take care of... well that means there's just a small section of the world who gets to contribute. I will see if I have any energy to re-do this. I tried to read and figure things out, but did not clearly understand it - and I am an extremely capable person who conquers quite a bit. Wikipedia seems very bent to one type of mind unfortunately. So be it. Let history be written by the few as it always has been. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TurtlesLiveLong First I have not read the draft you had declined. This is a general answer, not aimed at you, albeit it is a question.
Would you prefer any old thing to be accepted, whatever state it is in, or would you prefer a system of (optional) gatekeepers keeping the poor material out? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gatekeepers are needed - however what I am stating here as a "gatekeeper" is the interface more than anything. It is cold, confusing to navigate at times, and so it requires a lot of time and experience to successfully contribute in a thoughtful manner. I have no doubt there are a lot of spammers and opportunist that need to be weeded out. What I am saying, is that in the process of continually challenge, it also weeds out the earnest who likely have less free time and other obligations in their life. Where one might want to make progress in a few hours a week, it is definitively slow to see a payoff for that free labor. Volunteering in other spaces that provide kinder interactions seems to be a better use of my limited free time and energy to make a contribution to the world than spending countless hours just to navigate this platform. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer here about 9-12 hours per day, if you have limited time to edit then maybe creating new articles (the most difficult time consuming task here) is not for you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, @TurtlesLiveLong, Wikipedia *is* hard to navigate and can be really confusing for new editors. We recommend a new editor spend several weeks to months improving new articles so that they can get used to all the policies and guidelines. qcne (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info, and for proving my point. Elimination of inclusion is a part of the process. This breeds uniformity, which may be needed here to execute such a large organization. However, how do you have 9 to 12 hours a day to dedicate to this as a volunteer is beyond me? Are you getting paid in some form? How do you have income? TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us dedicate 9 to 12 hours a day, and no volunteer editor should be being paid.
Speaking for myself, I dedicate an hour or so a day in my down-time in the evenings. qcne (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok sorry, you had written 9 to 12 hours per a day, did you mean per a week? TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am 70 years old, long retired, with plenty of free time and passion for the project and often spend 9 to 12 hours a day editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong made that comment, not me. qcne (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza genocide

[edit]

There have been many accusations of genocide against Israel, not one of which has been confirmed by an official international body. This title is therefore extremely biased and should read 'Gaza genocide accusation(s). 2A01:CB08:58:A800:9579:84D:7CB3:D2C7 (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right page to discuss articles. If you feel strongly about the article title, you should start a discussion at Talk:Gaza genocide. But please review prior discussions on the page first, it is very likely that this has come up before and has already been discussed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, unregistered users are not permitted to edit about the Israeli-Arab conflict(including the Gaza war) as it is a formally designated contentious topic with its own special rules(you must have an account that is 30 days old with at least 500 substantive edits to edit about it). 331dot (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_14&oldid=1258519654"