Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 7 << Oct | November | Dec >> Current help desk >
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 8

[edit]

04:39, 8 November 2024 review of submission by UmIgu

[edit]

I am editing this article but it has been rejected several times. I would like to get more specific advice on how I can make the article meet the requirement. UmIgu (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UmIgu: this draft (not yet 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') because it does not show that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense. We need to see significant coverage of this company, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other). Press releases, routine business reporting, and primary sources do not count. Please study the relevant notability guideline WP:NCORP which explains this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for you advice. I will check it out. UmIgu (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Jharna Choudhury

[edit]

Kindly help regarding proper referencing of living artist. Jharna Choudhury (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jharna Choudhury: you can find advice on referencing at WP:REFB. Although looking at the sources in this draft, many of them are pretty useless, so you may also want to look at WP:GNG for advice on what sort of sources we want to see.
Having said all of which, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. At least not until and unless you can produce much stronger sources demonstrating notability, as well as supporting the draft content with appropriate referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:30, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Benjphelps

[edit]

Hello,

I tried to find and link as many sources as possible in the references section. Is the problem that I didn't use the cite tool to link the sources correctly, or are my sources in the references section just insufficient? There's a Chinese-language page for the game, so I could link the sources it has, but the challenge there is that I don't read Chinese, so I would be using imprecise translation tools to read and link those articles.

Thanks, Ben Benjphelps (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjphelps: at least some of your sources (TV Tropes, Fandom, Steam Store) are not reliable or otherwise useful. Also, while it isn't strictly speaking mandatory to use inline citations, it would certainly help the reviewers understand where each bit of the information has come from so that it can be verified. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing using this method. Note also that simply 'linking' sources serves at best limited purpose, if they don't actually support the information in the draft; Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising what reliable sources have previously said about a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Aston3421

[edit]

Hello I am working on a draft article and would like to have some help. Could anyone offer me any guidance or help writing it? Aston3421 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aston3421: can you be more specific, please; what guidance do you need? This draft was declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NARTIST notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 8 November 2024 review of submission by AkiyamaKana

[edit]

I would like to ask if the sources in the article are sufficient (in quality) enough to continue with it? A user in the Teahouse live chat said its sources were average, but I'd like a second check to make sure it's okay. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to put in the article as well, but I'd like to know whether it would ever pass notability tests before I try that. Thank you in advance. AkiyamaKana (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Bunnypranav

[edit]

I have recently accepted this draft, but it has shot me by tagging the page with a couple of page abbreviation errors. I do not know much about ISO 4 or infoboxes, would like some assistance on fixing it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Vijaysharma1231

[edit]

New to Wikipedia Vijaysharma1231 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijaysharma1231: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? Your draft has been rejected as not demonstrating sufficient notability to be included in the encyclopaedia.
I also queried your relationship with this subject earlier, but you don't appear to have responded to that. Could you do that now, please. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 8 November 2024 review of submission by BonnieGames 132

[edit]

Please upload my artical. BonnieGames 132 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BonnieGames 132, I am afraid that will not be happening. You are not notable enough to merit an article. qcne (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Kelmo24

[edit]

Hello! Not seeing an Edit tab on the draft when I log in, only Edit Source. Kelmo24 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelmo24 This is not a tech Helpdesk. WP:TEAHOUSE may serve you better. In the meantime save your work and quit and restart your browser, which may help 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 8 November 2024 review of submission by E-Logical Wiki

[edit]

We received a notice that our draft was declined and a link to WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't understand how the draft falls into the category of a blog, file hosting, social page, or a memorial. The page was intended to document and provide people with remaining information on The E-Logical Cinematic Universe. The creator isn't dead, nor is the project. Judging by the "CAMS" video, the creator is beginning the project's "second take". What currently sits on the page is the creator's own words and firsthand sources collected from people who discovered the cinematic universe prior to its presence being removed off the internet, such as screenshots and retellings of events. Once more content as part of the cinematic universe is released, we plan on moving what currently resides on the main part of the page to a section about its history. In the meantime, some help editing the page would be appreciated so that it doesn't get declined again. The team of 5 people behind this account all believe in the preservation of history. Whether it be accurate documentation of important events, cut content from video-games, and everything else in between. The CAMS video showed up on a few of our recommended pages on YouTube and we all freaked out because this project we all fell in love with and feel strongly about is finally coming back! We wanted to share information about it on Wikipedia for everyone to see, since it's kind of a hidden gem on the internet. E-Logical Wiki (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-Logical Wiki Before discussing anything else, it is a requirement here that one user has one account. Five users may not all use the same account. Each of you must register independently. The user name that you have chosen is inappropriate in that it represents The E-Logical Cinematic Universe, and you should apply to change it. You also have a WP:COI, potentially WP:PAID applies. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@E-Logical Wiki I have looked at the draft. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to tell the world about the many terrible misfortunes that have befallen an entity you have a conflict of interest with. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. This was a correct review and rejection.
Your user talk page now contains more information about the username, COI and paid editing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'd like to disclose that I and anyone else who is part of the draft have no relation with the creator, nor was anyone paid to make this. Upon reading the wording in the draft, the soapbox description seems accurate. However, it's a little hard not to sound like I'm lamenting the unfortunate events tied to the project when the limited history available is kind of rocky. As for the user name, how do I apply to have it changed? Thanks in advance! E-Logical Wiki (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@E-Logical Wiki, there's instructions on your talk page about how to have the name changed - and for clarity, if each of you wants to edit Wikipedia that's fine, you can each have an account. You don't need to use your real names, as you can see from the responses here, but you do need to avoid sharing an account.
If you want to have an article on this project, your first step is going to be finding sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). It's possible that the project hasn't yet gotten enough attention to have these sources - this happens a lot! We have a whole essay on it, WP:TOOSOON. If you believe that in time the project will become noticed by other people, and written about by them, you can keep your draft active by making an edit every five months. It doesn't need to be a big edit; you could add a space, for example. Keep an eye out for reliable sources, and bide your time. There's no rush, and no deadline here; we're pretty confident Wikipedia will be around for a while. When the sources appear, you can update your draft and hopefully have an article. I hope that helps you all, and wish you happy editing in the meantime! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]