Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 21 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 23 >
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.


October 22

[edit]

00:02, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Jooliah

[edit]

I need help resubmitting for approval Jooliah (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you... just delete the rejection template to resubmit it by force? Don't do that, you can appeal the rejection by discussing it with the rejecter if you are sure that it is significantly improved and meets guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. Make sure the sources have significant coverage. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 22 October 2024 review of submission by BlakeB93

[edit]

I'd like to resubmit a fully redone unique encyclopedia article version of this paper "Darksort" on Google Scholar and published in a scientific journal. The current edit is the current redone version. I believe it could be great for wikipedia. Regards. BlakeB93 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlakeB93: This is still written like a research essay and assumes the reader has a background in compsci. We do not assume our reader has any specialised background knowledge, as a rule. (Or as I usually put it, you're writing for Joe Blow from San Antonio, not for people who're read-in to the necessary background.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, regards. BlakeB93 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the topic (and I know you are blocked), copyright is granted automatically upon publication. Even if you wrote the paper, we cannot accept a copy-pasted/close-paraphrased version of it because standard all-rights-reserved copyright is mutually-exclusive with both of our content licences, and the only way to reconcile those differences would be to formally re-release the text of the paper under one of those licences. Posting it to Wikipedia in a lightly-edited form will not do that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it has no sources at all.
@BlakeB93, Wikipedia has absolutely zero interest in what you know (or in what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject. No sources, no article. ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) "Wikipedia has absolutely zero interest in what you know". First off, you couldn't be more (Personal attack removed) than saying Wikipedia has no interest in what a published scholar has written. It has sources, one is an academic journal on google scholar, where the paper was published. That paper contains 6 sources. I could work on sources more, but honestly have no interest, because I'm disgusted by you and people like you. Lol. Your loss, wikipedia's loss, not mine. I'm already published and on Google scholar with my research. (Personal attack removed) BlakeB93 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlakeB93: that better be your last personal attack here, and I would very strongly advise apologising for and/or retracting it ASAP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked BlakeB93 for personal attacks abd harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've redacted both the personal attacks and the ASCII art. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 22 October 2024 review of submission by TheMann1989

[edit]

Hello, I recently had my article Draft:Bliss (Tech N9ne album) declined by User:Dan arndt (because Apple Music was my only source at the time of declination) and User:SafariScribe. I would like for someone else to review it again and see if it is eligible for submission. User:SafariScribe insists that I don't have enough "credible" sources, but in comparison to other Tech N9ne discography articles I feel I do. TheMann1989 (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMann1989: the question isn't whether this draft's referencing is as good as some existing article's, but rather whether it is enough to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NALBUM notability guideline.
If you've addressed the reason(s) for the previous decline, you will get a new review when you resubmit your draft. If instead you're saying you disagree with that review, then you'll need to take this up with the last reviewer, or if you don't get engagement, explain here at the help desk where the review went wrong. And by 'explain', I don't mean "I feel they're wrong", but rather "this draft complies with the relevant guidelines and here's the evidence". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 22 October 2024 review of submission by DareshMohan

[edit]

I fixed the page, added the negative reception of his films. He passes WP:NACTOR for acting in 4+ films in lead roles. DareshMohan (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: okay... and? I take it you're saying this should be published, in which case you can just move it into the main article space yourself, as you have the necessary permissions and don't need our approval. Just remember to clear out the AfC templates after you've published it (or let us know and we'll do that). Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I don't have the rights to move this page due to the whole controversy surrounding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Symon_Sadik/Archive. If you were to make it an article, though, it is best to put it under the supervision of @Ravensfire:, @CNMall41:, who have to work like the Avengers to keep the article neutral. DareshMohan (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan: oh, sorry, I didn't notice the title is protected, my bad! In that case, I can't help either, as I'm not an admin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of socking and UPE to push this person makes this very, very difficult for me to dispassionately review this page. That said, I think there's enough to show a base level of notability that might be enough to survive an AFD discussion. Having mentions in a couple of reviews is helpful for showing notability. That's about as far as I'm willing to go here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can request the protection be lifted and then move the page. No admin access is required. If you would like, I can look at it closer but I have a question about notability. No one is inherently notable for acting in films. The guideline states they "may be notable," not "are" notable. I hear this argument in AfD discussions all the time, but notability is all about the significant coverage. Since you spent the time to work on it and clean it up (thank you for that by the way), let me know the sources showing notability and I will take a look and even request the protection removed if warranted. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:35, 22 October 2024 review of submission by MM Comms

[edit]

Hello! My page for Qonto in English has recently been published, thank you for your help! I am trying to link the page to the already existing pages in French, Spanish and Ukranian. Can you please help me with that? MM Comms (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MM Comms So, your username suggests you are employed by Qonto; if so, you need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. I will post information about this on your user talk page.
This page is to ask questions about drafts in the draft process, you may want to try the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I just went ahead and did it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Prashanthudupa

[edit]

Mr. Y K Muddukrishna is an ex-government administrator and a well-known singer. His contribution to the light music field is enormous. So, I request that you publish his profile in your esteemed portal. Kindly let me know what the procedure is for hosting his profile here. Thank you very much in advance for the help. Prashanthudupa (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanthudupa We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. If you want to write a profile, that's what social media is for. Your draft is completely unsourced and reads as a resume. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the definition of a notable person. It isn't for merely documenting someone's professional qualifications and activities. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Arthatruth

[edit]

Dear editors, I have made a draft page for the 1981 Iran Massacre. The draft highlights a mass atrocity in Iran's recent history. The Wikipedia contribution is based on scientific articles and UN-reports. All academic references and UN-article are also referenced in the contribution in view of academic standards. However, the draft submission has been declined by an editor "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". Given that the contribution is based on highly reliable resources (including most recent UN reports), I wonder how this issue could be resolved. Thanks Arthatruth (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the draft, but from what you say above, many of your sources are primary sources. That is not enough: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent secondary sources have published about a subject. Writing an article begins with finding reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in depth. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 22 October 2024 review of submission by 77.77.222.34

[edit]

How to add relevant reference? 77.77.222.34 (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit academic, now that this draft has been rejected. Rejection means the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Immaculate Namanda

[edit]

Can the article be edited for it to be fit for publishing ? Immaculate Namanda (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Immaculate Namanda: this draft is pure promotion, so probably the best thing to do is to blow it up and start again.
Wikipedia articles are compiled by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If you can identify multiple such sources, then you may be able to draft an article based on their coverage. It will almost certainly be very different from this rejected draft, hence my comment about starting again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kindly requesting in assistance in editing the article Immaculate Namanda (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as unambiguous promotion. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your initial post, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. What specific questions do you have? We can't co-edit with you. I can suggest that you read WP:SOLUTIONS. In short, "solutions" is marketing puffery. Are you associated with this business? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 15:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords cases pages

[edit]

I have written

to match

I would like to make List of House of Lords cases a directory of links to these pages.

I have matched the existing structure of the 3 existing pages, but the drafts were rejected for not having secondary sources. But this hasn't happened for the three existing pages. This also does not seem to apply to List of acts of the Scottish Parliament from 2024, so I am confused why it is being applied to these pages. I was under the impression that law-related lists did not have the same requirements and apex court cases are inherently notable. SqrtLog (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Shaneapickle

[edit]

I want the page to be turned into a stub, because there is currently no image of the comet Shaneapickle (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaneapickle: sorry, not sure what you mean? If published as-is, this would certainly be rated as a stub. However, it cannot be published, as it is unreferenced.
Moreover, images have no bearing on whether a draft can be accepted or not, so that isn't really an issue at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaneapickle: No sources, no article, no debate. Focus on actually getting sources first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a source from starwalk Shaneapickle (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://starwalk.space/en/news/upcoming-comets Shaneapickle (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaneapickle: then you need to cite the source(s) in the draft. We don't go looking for possible sources out there in the universe, we look at what is cited (or not) in the draft. This draft cites nought. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i added a reference about the comet Shaneapickle (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources I have edited your draft to comply with WP:MOS, but it could do with more sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Fa.ahmadi

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to know about the errors of my article. I have added the references recently but I would like to know if they work or not.

Sincerely Fa.Ahmadi Fa.ahmadi (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provided link does not go to draftspace, and article was deleted in 2016 as an unsourced BLP. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Ashkan Saberi
@Fa.ahmadi: Aside from the body of the text being very difficult to read, there remain unsourced claims in the article. As a rule, everything that could be challenged by a reasonable person must be sourced or removed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of your sources are reliable independent sources which discuss Saberi at length? (see WP:42). Those are the only kind of sources which are relevant to determining whether or not he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If there are not sufficient sources of that nature, then no article will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Jennie Jennie 1

[edit]

Hi, I have a draft being rejected, I wonder if I can continue work on it? Jennie Jennie 1 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could but it would require WP:TNT and starting afresh it is just blatant marketing at the moment with zero chance of acceptance. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Grassjunky

[edit]

Hello, could you please clarify which of the sources are considered not reliable or primary? Grassjunky (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Coffeeandkittens25

[edit]

I am having trouble understanding if this page's sources are failing the notability criteria or the independence criteria and why. The existing sources include direct coverage from CNBC, LA Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post, ABC News, and several government listings. Ven-A-Care is not affiliated with any of these organizations. Coffeeandkittens25 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources also include press releases which are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see press releases from the US government, which is not an affiliated entity and which I would hope is an authority on the court system. There are also some from the defense on the cases. Is there a concern that defendants are wrongly crediting the opposition for cases they did not actually settle? What is best practice with sources like this, are you requesting that they be removed? Coffeeandkittens25 (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've just detailed the routine activities of the company, and not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Normalman101

[edit]

Multiple times this article has been denied on accounts of notability and lack of sources. However to my knowledge the article has sources that meet all critera. There are a few soures that are not secondary but the majority are, and as an acredited government insitution I think it fits notability requirement. I don't understand why reviewers keep saying not enough sources as there seems to be enough. Either way I would appreciate guidence on the sourcing and notability situation. Normalman101 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normalman101: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature):
I see good sources being choked out by bad. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair, some of the sources I didn't find individualy and i had someone else more fluent verify. Thanks for mentioning what was dead, also some of the sources are only about building or graduation or creator to source those parts of the article. Thanks, i'll fix this. Normalman101 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Bushido77

[edit]

I don't understand.

  • first I submitted the article and was told it was not written in an encyclopedic manner
  • then I spent a lot of time working on rewriting it to be more academic and less like an essay
  • after all that effort to re-write the article it was rejected as inappropriate for Wikipedia

I would like to request some type of mediation, arbitration, or dispute. A lot of work went into this and there is no legitimate reason to summarily reject this article.

What steps can I take for arbitration? Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 There is no formal process for this. Since you disagree with the reviewers you are welcome to move this to mainspace yourself. There is no guarantee that it will survive there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but my page says it is not eligible for "resubmission." I am new to this, how can I move it to the main space on my own? Thanks. Bushido77 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bushido77. What Timtrent is saying is that (because your account has been around long enough) you have the power to ignore the submission process and simply move the draft into mainspace.
I would not advise this, because I think it is very likely that somebody would nominate it for deletion rapidly, and you would only have wasted your and others' time.
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. What you know, believe or think, is of zero relevance (as is what I know, believe, or think, or what any other random person on the internet knows, believes, or thinks).
Which of your many sources is all three of reliable (i.e published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control), independent (i.e. not affiliated with any Christian martial arts organisation - and, ideally, not affiliated with any Christian organisation or martial arts organisation), and containing significant coverage of the specific topic "Christiam martial arts"? Those are the only kind of sources which can contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe the article has appropriate documentation. Where would you suggest I find sources that are not from Christians and also not from martial artists that would be reliable? Bushido77 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77 The way Wikipedia works, unless another editor is inspired to assist, you are responsible for finding the sourcing you need. I th9jnk you have created this draft WP:BACKWARDS. Its a link worth reading 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found over 30 references to Christian martial arts in books and magazines and more than 30 Christian martial arts ministries.
Thanks I will look at WP:BACKWARDS.
I sent the article to the main space. Someone else moved it to Drafts. Bushido77 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_22&oldid=1253805443"