Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 16 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 18 >
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 17

[edit]

00:22, 17 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:2010:B0C9:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

i don't know why my page rejected 2409:40D1:2010:B0C9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia".
Please read the definition of notability that we use. ColinFine (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Tumbleweed game

[edit]

Hi. My article on the abstract game Tumbleweed was rejected. I don't think it is a question of notability, as much lesser known abstract games have their own page. In terms of references, I linked the Abstract Games magazine, which is the most authoritative magazine on the topic, and an article on a Canadian newspaper. I can link to BGG and BGA if needed. 122.11.212.181 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about Draft:Tumbleweed (game) although this IP address has not edited that draft. The SaskToday coverage is an opinion piece that relies overwhelmingly on direct quotations from Michal Zapala, the creator of the game. The AbstractGames.org piece was co-authored by Zapala. Neither of these references are independent of the game and its creator. What is required are multiple references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the game and its creator, that also devote significant coverage to the game. You mention that much lesser known abstract games have their own page. Please list them here. Maybe some or all of those articles should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the reply.
The article is by me, but I'm not logged into the account from the phone.
Involving or interviewing the author of a work is standard journalistic practice in my view, but I'll try to find some more references where the author is not involved. 122.11.214.237 (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, think more along the lines of reviews of games - these are likely to be independent, and there are many reliable publications and websites that review games. If someone heavily involved with the game is being interviewed as part of the piece, it's much less likely there's going to be any meaningful criticism or pointing out flaws. This isn't to say we require criticism, only that we're trying to find the least biased reporting available to fit with our eternal quest for a neutral point of view. Have a look at WP:42 for more information on what you need in a source. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mandatory and not negotiable that an acceptable Wikipedia article about a new game summarizes reliable, independent sources that are entirely independent of the game and the person that created the game. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. That's why I linked WP:42, since I think it has possibly the clearest information available on suitable sources. (If you were responding to the IP editor and I misread, please ignore this with my apologies.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involving or interviewing the author of works is standard journalistic practice, but just because something is a journalist practice doesn't mean it's encyclopedic for our purposes. We care about notability based on sources that are reliable, significant, and independent of the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Johncino

[edit]

Hi. So my last edit got rejected, but I would like to try again. I made a new edit on it, so can you check it again, thanks. Johncino (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that an article will not be considered further. Your draft is completely unsourced. Any article about this channel must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it and what makes it notable web content as Wikipedia defines it. If you need help writing citations, see Referencing for Beginners.
If you are associated with this channel(some language is very promotional) that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:38, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

When creating a new entry, do you need to write the entry in a complete manner? Rosebabysu (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft does not need to be 100% complete to pass this process; the usual standard reviewers look for is that a draft would survive an Articles for deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 17 November 2024 review of submission by 82.55.176.158

[edit]

buongiorno chiedo aiuto per la mia bozza Gaetano Minale che viene respinta perchè ritenuta più volte , non valida , nonostante aggiornamenti documentai. Possa avere per favore il vostro sostegno . Grazie Gaetano Minale 82.55.176.158 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Automated translation of the above: "good morning I ask for help for my Gaetano Minale draft that is rejected because it was considered invalid several times, despite document updates. May I please have your support. Thank you") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:07:05, 17 November 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Kplsharmadhk

[edit]



Kplsharmadhk (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kplsharmadhk: you don't ask a question, but this draft was deleted c. 1.5 years ago, as it hadn't been edited for six months. You may request for it to be returned to you by clicking on the red link and following the instructions there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Anovi Ejtikar

[edit]

Hi,

Can you let me know what I need to change in this article to be published?

I saw that I wrongly used references, instead of citing news, I used cite web since all the sources are from news.

Thank you in advance for your help,

Best

Anovi Ejtikar (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Anovi Ejtikar! Have you read through Your First Article, the Biographies of Living Persons policy, and our golden rule for selecting references? If not, start with those. I think your problem is likely to be the references you've used, rather than how you've cited them, so that third link will be especially important for you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, but those references are by publishers that has a reputation for fact checking and those texts are approved by an editor before it is printed. Maybe you see as it because the source are from Croatia, which is a small country, but references are valid. Anovi Ejtikar (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anovi Ejtikar, did you read through the third link, WP:42? I have had a look at some of your references to see if I can help - using Google Translate as I only speak English, so forgive any errors. Remember that your sources should meet the triple criteria of WP:42 to demonstrate notability, so any that don't are useless in terms of showing that someone is notable.
  • RockOff is a track list, so not significant coverage.
  • Feather is extremely short, so not significant coverage.
  • Sound Report is also very short, but it might be usable.
  • tportal is an interview, so not independent.
  • Muzika, unless I have completely missed something, is a single word, which is not significant coverage.
  • Ravno #1, '50 best albums', is a list, not significant coverage.
  • Ravno #2, about the release of Alright, is partly an interview or press release from Miriiam and the publishing studio, so not independent.
  • Ravno #3, about Call Me Up, is a good source.
  • Ravno 4, also about Call Me Up, is also a good source.
So in short, you need at least one or two more good sources to show she is notable. You also need to reread WP:BLP, because every single sentence in a biography of a living person must have a citation, and you are missing citations for things like her date of birth, birthplace, etc. Those will need to be either cited or removed before the draft is accepted. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your help Anovi Ejtikar (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Amar Karavdic

[edit]

Potrebna mi je pomoć da premjestim ovaj nacrt u Draft prostor imena kako bi bio u skladu sa smjernicama Wikipedije. Nemam potrebne dozvole da to učinim sam. Ovo će osigurati da nacrt bude pravilno pregledan i da zadrži svoju historiju uređivanja. Amar Karavdic (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Amar Karavdic

[edit]

Molim za savjet kako mogu poboljšati nacrt kako bi zadovoljio kriterije značajnosti. Dodao/la sam neke izvore, ali sam otvoren/a za sugestije. Amar Karavdic (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not notable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, please go to the Croatian Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Izackb11

[edit]

hello, I would like some advice in how to rewrite my wikipedia page, if possible to let me know also what's missing and what I could improve before resubmit again please, thanks. Izackb11 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izackb11 Ny best advice is not to do it. Also note that rejection means this this draft will not proceed further. You do not pass WP:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Izackb11 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Anthon.shishkin

[edit]

The draft was marked as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I think the problem is not the subject of the article, but my skills (as a very fresh author - I promise to improve).

While I fully admit: I'm not a very good Wikipedia researcher, the person in question created one of the largest telecommunication companies. Another (Russian) co-founder of the same company, Dmitry Zimin has a page on Wikipedia. It does not seem fair that while one person meets notability criteria, the other person with a very similar profile but from the U.S. does not meet notability standards.

Besides, the name of the person is mentioned on the Wikipedia page about VEON, and I was thinking it's good to link this name to a proper article. Anthon.shishkin (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anthon.shishkin. I'd be happy to revert my rejection in good-faith. It would be worth reading the following:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 qcne (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Harryhealey

[edit]

I am trying to write an article on our local entrepreneur, Oliver Alcock. Please can you let me know what needs to be changed for this article to be approved? Harryhealey (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harryhealey Re-write it to comply with our strict policies regarding promotion. Then add in-line citations throughout. qcne (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]