Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 8 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 10 >
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 9

[edit]

00:17, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Kitty Catania

[edit]

Preciso que minha página seja aceita, mas não consigo achar fontes que agradem aos adms. Kitty Catania (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All translations below are Google; I only speak English.
Please write in English so we can understand you. Por favor, escreva em inglês para que possamos entendê-lo.
Google says the question is 'I need my page to be accepted, but I can't find sources that the admins like'. Admins are not the ones reviewing your draft; we are all just volunteer editors here. You need to find sources that fit the criteria of 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). At the moment you only have one source, and it is not reliable. It only talks about Eco Goth as it relates to Scooby-Doo. Most of your draft is not supported by references. Since the draft has been rejected, this means it is time to give up unless you want to delete everything and start again.
If you are more comfortable writing in what Google says is Portuguese, maybe you would find it easier to contribute to the Portuguese Wikipedia? You are welcome to stay here on the English Wikipedia if you prefer it here, but please write in English here so we can all understand what you are saying. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitty Catania: Your only sources are a work of fiction and Researchgate, which we do not consider to be reliable sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Zyahiaoui

[edit]

this is my son i can submit all proof for it how i can submit again Zyahiaoui (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyahiaoui it is strongly discouraged to write about someone you personally know, such as your son. The draft is unsourced and promotional. Please read Help:Your first article before proceeding. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyahiaoui, please understand 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. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 9 November 2024 review of submission by 112.134.170.36

[edit]

I have not been able to find any information on Surgeons in Sri Lanka with their email address 112.134.170.36 (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for AfC submissions only. Please use the reference desk or Google search for non Wikipedia-related questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Bhtriv

[edit]

why Bhtriv (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhtriv to quote a fellow reviewer, no sources, no article, no debate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhtriv: Not only that, but a one-sentence "article" is practically useless to your average reader. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 9 November 2024 review of submission by TheDataDiver

[edit]

my topic was different and not covered TheDataDiver (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheDataDiver I'm not really seeing how it is different. Even if it is, I suggest that you improve that article first, then make an argument on its talk page for it to be split. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDataDiver: how is it different? Your draft lists three types, which are covered (it seems to me) in the three articles Hormone replacement therapy, Androgen replacement therapy, and Gender-affirming hormone therapy, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i can understand but wikipedia allow me to write on this topic thats why I am consufed nothing eles and am newcomer to this platform anyway thank you for your reply TheDataDiver (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheDataDiver Before writing a new article, you should check to see that one does not already exist. You are welcome to contribute any missing information to an existing article. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Peter Kelford

[edit]

Rejection for lack of reliable sources - I'm looking for any ideas/suggestions for the kinds of sources that might be appropriate? Peter Kelford (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Kelford: We don't cite ResearchGate (no editorial oversight), any sort of social media (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject), anything the subject themselves writes (connexion to subject), or court cases (gov't document) for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dr Netolitzky meets the academics' notability criteria: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#General notes
  1. He has a KC (King's Counsel), which is a selective and prestigious professional award;
  2. He is widely cited, as demonstrated (I can add some more academic citations if wanted but in the legal sector citation by courts is often viewed as more prestigious than academic citation)
Would I be correct in surmising that providing more examples of him being cited in academia would suffice to demonstrate notability? Or is there a specific way of doing it? Peter Kelford (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge practicing lawyers/barristers do not fall under WP:NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but he's more of an academic who got a KC as an honorary recognition for his academic work. The KC is not only for practicing lawyers but also those who work in government or academia and contribute through research and other work to the legal sector. (See the alternative criteria presented here: https://www.alberta.ca/kings-counsel). In Netolitzky's case the main qualifying factor is his unique work in pseudolaw. Peter Kelford (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But his research is related to his legal career, much as if a US Supreme Court justice wrote about legal research they performed. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that he's an academic lawyer, i.e. a person who is a researcher first and foremost - much like how many university academics also teach on top of doing research.
His research isn't an inherent part of his court job, which doesn't require him to produce academic papers about measuring and quantifying court processes - often about courts other than the one in which he works - or about theorising pseudolaw (the two main areas in which his research focuses).
That's different to a practicing lawyer or judge occasionally writing about something purely practical and merely incidental to their work. Peter Kelford (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Vincars2

[edit]

This Real look on Fandom this find is "The Webcyclopedia Wiki" and Search This, Okay? 

Vincars2 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is rather incoherent. Your draft was rejected the topic is clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:51, 9 November 2024 review of submission by 108.52.107.149

[edit]

Need help finding reliable independent resources for the group. The group already has a Japanese Wiki. 108.52.107.149 (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN. You need to rely on your own resources, please. While there is a possibility that someone may take the task on the probability is low. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_9&oldid=1257482652"