Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 15 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 17 >
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 16

[edit]

05:09, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Clarkien03

[edit]

World needs this article. Clarkien03 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox deleted and OP indef'ed NOTHERE. Meters (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 16 November 2024 review of submission by 103.92.154.152

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hakikur_Rahman

Appreciate assistance in improving the draft as per Wiki guideline.

Thanks and regards, 

103.92.154.152 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more specific, what assistance are you requesting? This draft was declined for lack of notability, so that is what you need to focus on trying to demonstrate (either by WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, we have provided several external and independent references. How do we focus on notability aspect? Hakiks070 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hakiks070: the sources you're citing are a mix of primary sources, passing mentions, and the subject commenting on something; these do not establish notability per WP:GNG. There is also nothing in the draft that would suggest NACADEMIC notability.
Note, too, that articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, whereas much of the information in this draft is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

More resources added Mahmoudali123 (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review it again? Mahmoudali123 (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be reviewed again. If new sources have become available which clearly demonstrate notability, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but only do that if you have a reasonably strong case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have added are clearly not reliable independent sources [1] , [2], [3] and [4] Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the required sources? I have added 12 sources. Mahmoudali123 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123: But there are still no sources that show notability. 12 poor sources are no better than no source at all, and are in fact often worse than no sources. All decline notices on your user talk page have explained what kind of sources are required, in the grey boxes of text starting with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec

[edit]

In the normal world, the publication of research papers (by professional and academic institutions) indicates a very high level of notability and respect by independent scientific boards. This is how notability was established in the scientific world in the 1940s. The discovery and proof of tantalum's suitability for orthopaedic and dental surgery was a phenomenal scientific achievement, widely verified and acknowledged by medical science over 80 years ago. The listed journals are evidence of the required notability. Henrilebec (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec: merely publishing papers etc. confers no automatic notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. You need to demonstrate, with evidence, that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia writing is different than scholarly and academic publishing. You've mostly cited work that this man wrote- that does not establish notability. If that work makes him notable(see the notability guideline for academics) we need independent reliable sources that state that- like published papers by others that cite his work as an influence on them. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrilebec Please read WP:ACADEME which explains the difference between academe and Wikipedia, and a lot else besides. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to follow-up questions: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Reliable Sources?. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 16 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AA11:327F:3180:A81C:B7D2:A724:FA84

[edit]

Why did you reject my article? It actually is a myth from my town, im from Chur a small city in Switzerland and im trying to make those myths more famous. I do not appreciate the rejection. 2A02:AA11:327F:3180:A81C:B7D2:A724:FA84 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the myth is not notable already then we cannot have an article about it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm trying to make those myths more famous" is another way of saying "I'm trying to promote those myths". Promotion is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
Another way of looking at it is that a Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable published sources say about a subject. That's all. ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Trex32

[edit]

Thanks for the editorial feedback. There are a number of new third party sources that mention the subject. When I compare to other wikipedia articles these are more robust third party sources. Please advise. This article has evolved a fair bit with all the editorial feedback. Would apppreciate more advice to get this approved. Trex32 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Trex32. Do they "mention" the subject, or do they have significant coverage of him? If they only mention him, they contribute nothing.
Don't compare with other Wikipedia articles, unless they are good articles or featured articles: we have tens of thousands of seriously substandard articles which, if they were submitted today, would certainly not be accepted (but we don't have tens of thousands of editors who are willing to spend much time going through these improving or deleting them). We evaluate each submitted article on its own merits. See other stuff exists.
I haven't looked at your sources, or really read your draft. But I notice that many statements have two or three citations. If I were a reviewer (I'm not) that would be a red flag. Unless a sentence has more than one claim, which happen to be verifiable from different sources, there is no point in attaching more than one citation to a sentence - and doing so suggests either that the writer does not understand the purpose of a citation (which is, telling the reader where they can find verification of information in the preceding text - nothing else), or that they realise that their sources are weak, and hope that by providing multiple weak sources, this somehow adds up to a satisfactory source (it doesn't). ColinFine (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully half of these are things written by Reddi, so those are not independent. Most of the rest of the sources are simply quotes from Reddi. Only a handful of these sources have any information about Reddi and the ones that aren't passing mentions of Reddi's job title are either WP:PRIMARY or things connected to Reddi, such as bio listing on an advertised panel. Even if these were independent and reliable, the sourcing is a mess, with sources frequently not backing up the specific fact they're cited to and many not even mentioning Reddi.
If you're serious about making the best case for an article on this subject, start with only sources that are independent, reliable, and specifically about Reddi. Then write from those sources and only those sources. Three good sources are superior to 30 passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, very grateful@CoffeeCrumbs@ColinFine. Will start rewriting. Really appreciate the feedback Trex32 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you good fortune! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Artistguides

[edit]

The comment is that my article is non notable? However, there are many news articles about Hendog and their art and what they have done in their community. I cannot understand how this is non notable? Can anyone help out?? Artistguides (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistguides: it seems that the majority, if not all, of the sources are either about individual works, rather than about the artist, and/or they are the artist commenting on their work. Can you point out the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other), and have provided significant coverage of the subject? (I'm focusing on the GNG, because I don't see how this would meet the special WP:ARTIST guideline.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Theriazz123

[edit]

How can I improve this article? Theriazz123 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that no improvement is possible, at least not before the release of the film. See WP:NFF. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Beezy Gh

[edit]

I will need an assistance with the referencing for this article with detailed and simple explanation of what needs to be done. Beezy Gh (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beezy Gh You've created a promotional draft with the help of an AI chatbot. It's entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Hassan Sirhandi

[edit]

Ill donate 50 dollars if you guys allow to publish my page. Hassan Sirhandi (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassan Sirhandi Donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation who run the servers Wikipedia is hosted on. Volunteer editors do not see any of that money. The Foundation does not need your donations. Donations have no impact on if an article will get reviewed or accepted.
As you have offered money on this public forum, you will very likely be contacted by scammers who say they can publish/edit/accept an article in exchange for money. This is an ongoing scam. qcne (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_16&oldid=1258871855"