Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 23 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 25 >
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 24

[edit]

12:20, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Fosterjr

[edit]

Hello I used to have a page which was deleted as somebody kept changing information on it that wasn't correct. I am trying to re-upload a page but no matter what I do it cannot be included. Could you please advise? Could I request that the deleted page is perhaps re-submitted without the wrong material included? I probably should have requested this the first time but I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what to do the first time I requested my page be deleted. thank you Fosterjr (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not meet the notability criteria, which is why your draft was rejected. Even if you hadn't asked for the first effort to be deleted, it may very well have been anyway. That (and your new attempt) didn't address the concerns of reviewers.
Your initial concerns are still an issue- if an article about you exists, others can put incorrect information on it, even if only temporarily. See WP:PROUD as to why an article about yourself isn't necessarily desirable. My advice is that you focus your efforts on social media where you can indeed own and control the content you post. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Amrsoliman1966

[edit]

I have submitted links to interviews and the most recent award Ed Sousa has recieved. I am not sure how much more information is required to validate hi notoriaty? Amrsoliman1966 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrsoliman1966 It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). Interviews are useless for establishing notability, as that is not an independent reliable source, it is the person speaking about themselves. This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Daisy.totomm

[edit]

Hi! I wanted to list an increasingly used coastal ocean model that already covers most of the market in some countries. The entry was rejected because of 'All sources are primary.' 0. I guess ArXiv preprints don’t count(?) 1. How about conference papers and proceedings? 2. Do conference papers have to be peer-reviewed? 3. Do they have to be from reputable sources, like AIMS for math? 4. Do journal papers need to be WoS tracked? Do they have to have an impact factor? 5. What about technical reports (the most common format for commercial models)? I’m looking to figure out what will qualify as secondary sources as blogs and forum posts obviously won’t. 6. Oh, and will secondary sources be disqualified if author collaborated with the primary source prior in some papers? E.g. F1000 has such rule. Daisy.totomm (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisy.totomm: someone will hopefully come along soon who can answer your questions more specifically, but in general terms, sources should at least be independent of the subject, as a bare minimum; now nearly all your sources are papers (co-)authored by the developer himself. We have very little interest in what the developer says about this software, we mainly want to know what third parties say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what DoubleGrazing says is correct. If a concept has not been discussed in independent and secondary sources, there can't be a Wikipedia article about it. All the sources in the draft are publications where Lawen is the main or co-author, with the exception of the project's own website and a university website which isn't actually a source – it follows the sentence about Lawen developing the model while he was at Texas A&M University, but the linked webpage doesn't mention Wavedyne so it doesn't verify that information. --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Bronson Fotiadis1

[edit]

The article submitted was decline for reasons of inadequate citations. The article contains over 70 in-line citations listing the author, date, or direct link to the source listed below. This includes sources from the National Park Service on information such as Fort Jefferson or the official NOAA website on the effects of Hurricane Wilma on Key West in 2005. Any further information as to how the article does not meet the requirements for adequate and verifiable sources would be greatly appreciated. Bronson Fotiadis1 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask the reviewer Courtesy ping: AlphaBetaGamma? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was really leaning on accepting due to how well written it is, but I kinda got stuck on "The Port's cruise ship dock was originally opened in 1984 in Mallory Square and was met with disapproval by citizens that it would disrupt sunset watching on the square. In 2021, the Florida State Legislature overturned the amendments.In March 2024, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis approved renovation plans for Pier B, a project in which to service larger ships in the harbor." and "Key West's Wrecking industry contributed the island's wealthiest periods throughout much of the 19th century. Shipwrecks became a common occurrence in the Florida Keys with vessels from the Old World running aground in the regions shallow reefs. Indigenous Natives in Key West were often employed to salvage cargo from wrecked merchant vessels during the early 17th century, including a major salvaging by Natives of the Spanish Fleet wrecked off of the Marquesas Keys in 1622.". Not sure if I am being an idiot and forgetting a policy here, but 2 paragraphs worth of no inline citations kinda stopped me, only because the author seems to know how to use sfns and has seems to have sourced every book-supported citations already, so I assumed it wasn't the "There is a book reference in the reference section but there's no inline footnote" situation. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:34, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Amrsoliman1966

[edit]

Is there a possibility to obtain the deleted information to create a new page? Amrsoliman1966 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amrsoliman1966: if you go to Draft:Ed Sousa, you can see the name of the admin who deleted this; you can ask them if they would return the contents to you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Allied Panzer

[edit]

I do not know where to find sources online. If I could get tips on where to find reliable sources that would be amazing. Allied Panzer (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied Panzer: Try your local library? We also accept offline sources, if cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Mitolivia

[edit]

Dear Team, I'd like to request some more feedback regarding why the sources are not reliable enough. Susan is well-known in her industry, her peers appear in wikipedia.

This page [1] declares Forbes as a reliable source which was used among the references. However, I did find 2 sources that are considered not reliable, I'll remove them.

"Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [...] magazines, journals, and news coverage (not opinions) from mainstream newspapers." - there are Hungarian references that are higher quality online magazines as well as a reputable university.

Can you please provide more assistance? Thank you in advance! Mitolivia (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to respond to the claim that you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Boudrege

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to know why the sources weren't liable? Was the band camp reference the reason behind the rejection?

Thank you, Geneviève Boudreau Boudrege (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boudrege: In part, yes. We don't cite Bandcamp or Setlist.fm (streaming service/online storefront). We also don't cite their own music label (connexion to subject). Pitchfork is generally seen as a good source, however. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that this band as been apart of the underground hip hop scenes for well over 5 years now.They're not a "thing" that was made up one day, they have audience from all over the world. Boudrege (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Boudrege, you replied to the wrong question - my comment about MADEUP was in regards to another submission. I have moved your comments to the correct section. Qcne (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you, I will make some changes and resubmit. I appreciate you taking the time to revise the article. Boudrege (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 24 October 2024 review of submission by 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577

[edit]

I instructed ChatGPT to create a language and decided to tell the world about it. I understand that some of the information may be false. I will have you know that I am simply telling you what ChatGPT told me. I can revise the article.

Best regards, 

                     Wikipedia User 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have let you make the page if I were in charge. It sounds interesting. I'd like to see it. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the article as we disallow things that were made up one day. Please also don't post comments pretending to be un-affiliated users. Qcne (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do we not accept text generated by ChatGPT or other large language models, we don't accept novel concepts or research. We are an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I apologize for any trouble caused. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 24 October 2024 review of submission by RigbyNicholson

[edit]

I have requested this page to be uploaded three times, but every time I am struck down by people saying I have unreliable sources. What sourced have I cited that are unreliable, in this article, thanks, Rigby. RigbyNicholson (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. Entire sections are unsourced, or at least lack inline citations. The sentence encouraging readers to visit the school website should be removed,.external links aren't displayed that way. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you could make the problems of referencing and passing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES a bit less daunting if the draft was written in a much more focused manner. Right now, more of the article is devoted to a previous school that relocated and a biography of the person the school was named for than the actual school itself. And what there is of the school is filled with lots of random details that aren't really encyclopedic; I'm not sure the policy of sixth grader sport participation is really something for here. If you think you can demonstrate notability, find sources that are independent and talk about the school, not the previous school or Charles Owen. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

Some how I want to get this on Wiki Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what sources you're trying to cite in the draft, because all references are malformed bare urls, which a lot of editors here hate for a good reason. Additionally, the draft has a major issue with promotional tones, which is also unacceptable. Your draft has already been rejected 3 months ago, so if you want to resubmit it after you do a complete overhaul of the draft, you can launch a discussion with the rejecting reviewer to appeal the rejection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Kiyume1990

[edit]

Yes Kiyume1990 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting reviewers' time with empty drafts. A blank page will never be considered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_24&oldid=1254251931"