Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 27 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 29 >
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 28

[edit]

02:37, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Songha Mao

[edit]

I want to resubmit for tiger reth. Thank You. Songha Mao (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can not, since the draft have been rejected, meaning you cannot resubmit any further. Ca talk to me! 05:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Raspberry505

[edit]

How to make this draft credible for Wikipedia? Raspberry505 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can not, since the draft have been rejected, meaning you cannot resubmit any further. Since the election have not happened yet, there is nothing to talk about. In addition, you have to find in-depth, reliable and independent sources for your draft. See the help page WP:42. Ca talk to me! 05:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Keshavwebglaze

[edit]

Hi, I recently posted the article for review, and it was rejected. I am very new at this and can't determine the reasons and words for which it was denied. If any one can help me to rewrite the article in more neutral tone it will be very helpful. Keshavwebglaze (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keshavwebglaze: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. Some comments have been offered in the draft. Basically, your job is not to praise or 'sell' the subject, only to describe her in the most boringly dry, factual manner you can. Any peacocky terms such as "pioneering" are only allowed if they are a direct quote from a reliable and independent secondary source, and even then they're probably best left out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ohk @DoubleGrazing ill take my time and try to make it more boringly dry without enhancing her as the most prominent in racing. Will make it more simple leaving peacocky terms as you have mentioned. Keshavwebglaze (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Keshavwebglaze. 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) 14:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:19, 28 October 2024 review of submission by LeopoldFriedrich

[edit]

Hello, my article was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.", are my sources not reliable? I don't understand how. I included a book, a blog, the primary source. I could also include a video about the topic. Would that help? Did I cite something wrong? I don't understand. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are almost never considered reliable sources as they almost always lack fact checking and editorial control. Most YouTube/other videos have the same problem, unless they are from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel.
You're just documenting the existence of the language, not what independent reliable sources choose to say about it and what makes it notable. If no such sources exist, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about including videos from this outlet mibuso.com, also I thought the language may be notable as the predecessor language which was used for the same purpose has an article. Is the book source I listed not accaptable? Programming Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central: Build customized ... - Marije Brummel, David Studebaker, Chris Studebaker - Google Books, I thought that this would constitute a source that showed it to be notable. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LeopoldFriedrich. Your draft was declined not rejected. Those are two very different things. What your draft lacks is multiple references to significant coverage of the AL programming language in reliable sources completely independent of the AL programming language, and Microsoft whose project it is. Some of your sources do not discuss the AL programming language and are therefore of no value in establishing notability. Sources published by Microsoft are of no value in establishing notability. Blogs are almost never reliable sources. Videos are rarely reliable sources unless under the direct editorial control of a reliable media outlet. Pundits expressing their opinions do not confer notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use the language professionally, I am however not employed at microsoft. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Lstr1

[edit]

Hi, I’m writing to ask if there are any changes needed for my article. I would really appreciate an update on the review and if you could let me know when I can expect approval or feedback. Thank you in advance, Best Regards Lstr1 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast response. Lstr1 (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:50, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Zabica99

[edit]

In relation to a drafted article on a regional IT company, I'm looking for help on my resources.

I think they're okay, there's a financial statement in there regarding key people, there are also a few different and reliable news articles regarding the company.

In short, are the listed references off or do I need more of them?

Thank you for your help, kind regards :) Zabica99 (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need more references, you need better references, ones that don't just report the routine activities of the company. See WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for the response.
I've changed up the 3rd reference, which I felt was a paid article and it wasn't in accordance with the "Independent" aspect of referencing.
References 1, 2, 4 and 6 are independent and verifiable, 1 is Croatia's Financial Agency, 2 is an independent article that talks about the company in-depth, four is independent coverage from one of the largest web portals and number 6 is from an official government website.
Please don't take this as argumentative, as it's not my intention, could you point me in the right direction on which references would need changing?
Thanks in advance! :) Zabica99 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Paul H Graham

[edit]

Can someone help me why will they delete my page? What did I do? What did I violate? Paul H Graham (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autobiography would be a good place to start, especially the point that reads "Self-created articles are often nominated for deletion, and comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary. Many editors feel that persons who create autobiographies are exploiting a volunteer project for their own aggrandizement." Your article clearly falls into the category of self-aggrandisement. It's pure spam. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 103.187.249.149

[edit]

Why my article is getting rejected again and again? 103.187.249.149 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:31, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Asratulhasannahid

[edit]

Hallo Dear Wikipedia team. My name is Asratul Hasan Nahid and I came to know a while back that my article was rejected but I can't understand what was my mistake for which my article was rejected. I just wrote an article about my profession and biography and I wrote the article completely following your rules. I don't know why my article is rejected pls let me know my mistakes and give me the opportunity to correct these mistakes and resubmit. Asratulhasannahid (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is you didn't follow our rules, namely WP:PROMO and WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. That's exactly what social media is for. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply. I actually didn't see these requirements so I wrote an article like this. thanks wiki Asratulhasannahid (talk) 12:45, 28 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) 14:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Arthatruth

[edit]

Dear editors, The submission has been drafted based on authoritative and indepenent scholarly and legal documents, which are referenced in the article. The sources include a recent UN-report (2024), academic journal papers, scholarly monographs, and academic databases. All sources are mentioned in the submission. However, the entry has been declined "due to lack of reliable sources". Therefore, I wonder how this issue could be resolved. I also sent a message to the editor but has not received a message so far. I would be grateful if you could help. Best, Arthatruth (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be independent. Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthatruth, have you read the comments at the top of the draft? ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Kieron Brodie

[edit]

I would like to ask where in my page I can correct please. I am very new to this interface so any guidance will be very much appreciated. Thank you. Kieron Brodie (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieron Brodie: welcome to Wikipedia. The draft would need to be thoroughly revised and rewritten so as not to read like a piece of journalistic writing with flowery language such as Kieron succeeded in finding notoriety through skateboarding by appearing in television commercials. In addition, too much of the content lacks a source, such as the entire "Early Life" section. Please also see the informtion on your user talk page about writing autobiographies. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 28 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.
When the subject in question is yourself, I would advise not ever trying to create the article. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kieron Brodie, highly promotional language like true to his vision of seeing how far his passion in street skateboarding could take him is utterly inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Please read and ponder WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 2601:547:1481:2DA0:B1AD:2385:A85F:8C0

[edit]

I have submitted multiple iterations of this draft and now believe it to be solely based in reliable third party sources; podcast/1:1 interviews have been removed, tributes to other individuals mentioned have been removed and replaced with third party articles that include mentions of Suswell, a large number of sources are in use, formal language has been applied throughout. In my understanding, I have satisfied all the requirements listed by the editor. Further clarification is needed, as I am unclear about what sources are not accepted. 2601:547:1481:2DA0:B1AD:2385:A85F:8C0 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been resubmitted; the reviewer will leave feedback if they don't accept the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Aadhya abhiraj

[edit]

I want to create a details in Wikipedia plz help me Aadhya abhiraj (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aadhya abhiraj: judging by your user name, you have transitioned swiftly from sitting unaided to editing Wikipedia. Kudos.
More seriously, this draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable. And IMHO, it isn't suitable for an encyclopaedia anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 28 October 2024 review of submission by WikiAccount1777

[edit]

The article was now declined several times. My impression (but I may be wrong) is that the first versions were without sufficient references. I am not sure I understand yesterday's rejection. This may be justified, but I would like to understand. WikiAccount1777 (talk) 16:45, 28 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.
Note 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.
Does any one of your citations meet the criteria in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 205.220.129.27

[edit]

Hello. I understand the feedback and I plan to address. The article was submitted by Adam Werbach. I would like to both revise content (eg remove subjective content) and have sources such as published academic articles and books that will support the page as a notable person. My question is how to do I get a few more days? I am traveling this week. 205.220.129.27 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to worry about that. Drafts don't get deleted until six months have passed since their most recent edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 28 October 2024 review of submission by DCTraci

[edit]

I've ben advised that the article is not formal enough and i have a difficulty in knowing how to fix it. Can you please offer me assistance and make the necessary changes to bring it up to that level. I am unable to locate those words that do not fit. 

DCTraci (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DCTraci: ...which is why we discourage conflict-of-interest writing, assuming you are related to him. The article has zero references. Note that we do accept offline references (i.e. books, newspapers) provided they are cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @DTraci. Like most beginners who try the challenging task of creating a new article without first spending an appreciable time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.
A Wikipedia article should be almost 100% based on reliable independent sources. Nothing that you know about the subject (even if you are related to the subject) is of any relevance unless a reader can in principle verify it from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Theamazingduckington

[edit]

Why is the article being rejected for poor sources when its based off of the 2023 Breeder's Cup article with only two sources? Theamazingduckington (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, if you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies in 2023 Breeders' Cup. I am not interested enough to have researched whether or not adequate sources exist, but I have tagged that article for its inadequate sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:52F8:E800:A097:9FB2:AB:ED82

[edit]

What type of sources should we include? 2600:1700:52F8:E800:A097:9FB2:AB:ED82 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources that discuss this person in depth and tell what makes him a notable person. Holding patents doesn't do it(hundreds of thousands do that), unless you have coverage that discusses the significance of his doing so.. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article starts by finding reliable independent sources (see 42), so that if you cannot find any, or only find one or two, you will know not to spend any more time on a subject which cannot have a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_28&oldid=1255084082"