Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 28 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 30 >
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 29

[edit]

02:34, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Cclind

[edit]

My article keeps getting rejected because the subject is not "notable." I am not sure which articles to find that would warrant notability. So far, I have some from local newspapers, academic websites, and even a journal article. How do I prove that he was notable? Cclind (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cclind! One thing that you'll want to fix before resubmitting is the citations. Have a look at referencing for beginners for a guide. You could also investigate WP:TWINKLE, which I believe adds some handy buttons for referencing (as well as tons of other things you might like if you want to stick around and keep editing!)
So now on to notability. First, you should have an idea in your mind of which criteria you're going to establish Krumholz is notable under. As he's a person, you have the choice of WP:NPERSON (notable person) or WP:GNG (general notability). There are sub-criteria for notable people as well, so you might want to look and see whether he meets the criteria for, say, academics. I have to admit that I don't immediately see which criteria he would count as notable under, but if you can point out the one you're relying on, I'd be happy to look through your sources and see how they stack up.
A last word - someone can be important, worthy, and respected in their field but still not be notable by Wikipedia's rules. Very, very few people ever warrant an article. Don't be discouraged if it turns out Krumholz isn't notable by Wikipedia standards - we'd love to have another editor around working on other articles. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 29 October 2024 review of submission by 115.70.155.108

[edit]

Hi,

What do I need to do to get it good enough for an article.

Blessings. 115.70.155.108 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 29 October 2024 review of submission by SIEFIsmail

[edit]

now the page will not be published after my last edits ? SIEFIsmail (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources that show how she is a notable person. You essentially have just documented her work and activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SIEFIsmail: how did you happen to find this draft, just out of curiosity? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd presume BrendaAbdelall (talk · contribs) told them, either before or after they got blocked. And given SIEFIsmail registered shortly after that block, this is me assuming good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Although I did notice, only after I'd posed that question, that the block was only soft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Can you review my draft? Rosebabysu (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: you have submitted your draft for review, so it will be reviewed. It is impossible to say when the review will happen, since the reviewers are volunteers, and may evaluate drafts in any order. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosebabysu: the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up; please be patient.
That said, the information there is so sparse that it doesn't really amount to a viable article draft. If it were published like that, it would be liable for an immediate A7 speedy deletion as it does not make a credible claim of noteworthiness. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:20, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

[edit]

This article has been dedlined after I had already rewritten it to take into account comments from an editor. The reasons cited by the editor who rejected the submission appear quite un-specific, vague, to the point where I could think this editor is biased. This editor does not point which parts of the text correspond to the problems he mentions. I think the text is much more neutral and encyclopedic in both style and content than many wikipedia articles, and this rejection appears extremely unfair to me Steyncham (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steyncham: please do not make unfounded accusations of bias without providing solid evidence.
Also, this draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), merely declined (which means you're welcome to submit once you address the decline reasons).
The draft reads like an advocacy piece. We're looking for purely neutral, factual description, based on summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about this organisation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got as far as looking at your first three sources - none of which even mentions "WePlanet".
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, that is all. A citation which does not even mention the subject is usually a waste of everybody's time - writer's, reviewer's, and reader's.
I suspect that you wrote the draft BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Fab Papa

[edit]

I have taken the following page as a model for the creation of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rother

Lean Thinking movement has worldwide historical significance and I find it interesting to document the key contributions that shaped it. John Shook and Mike Rother have both made key contributions, have a similar number of awards and have a similar number of publications.

So it's an interesting learning opportunity for me: what makes the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rother page ok but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Shook not ok?

Thanks for the feedback! Fab Papa (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fab Papa: unfortunately you've chosen a poorly-referenced, short stub, with questionable notability (and apparently written by the subject himself, to boot!) to model yours on. Which means you're at risk of replicating some of its problems.
If you're basing your claim of notability on impact and legacy, you need to support that with reliable and independent sources that clearly back that up.
The sources cited in this draft are primary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback!
I have discovered the concept of writing backwards, which I think explains some of my initial misconceptions. I will restart "forward" from the different awards received. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Shook Fab Papa (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Fab Papa. I applaud you for working forwards. But it isn't the awards that you should work forward from: significant awards are indicators that a subject is probably notable (in Wikipedia's sense), but it is still the reliable independent sources that are required (see WP:42) and these are far and away the best place to start from. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, I finally found the time to try again.
I tried to work forward from three key books on Lean Management, "Lean Thinking", "The Toyota Way" and "The Roots of Lean", which I believe are the right secondary sources to decide whether someone is a noteworthy contributor to Lean Thinking. I hope I am much closer to the expected encyclopaedic tone and the article will contribute to better documenting Lean Thinking.
/cc @DoubleGrazing @Ibjaja055 Fab Papa (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Mdshinhasarder24

[edit]

Please add me details biography 

in wikipedia  Mdshinhasarder24 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdshinhasarder24: nope, not going to happen. You were probably already told with your previous account, but if not, let me tell you now that we don't support autobiographies, especially where there isn't the slightest evidence that the subject is notable. You need to try somewhere like LinkedIn for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Biography for MD. Shinha Sarder Mdshinhasarder24 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is block evasion. Draft is up for CSD G5 G11. SPI open. WP:ROTM self promoter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja

[edit]

Hi there, I use Wikipedia all the time and have sent donations multiple times. I love what you all do and I'm trying to learn how to contribute to pages now as an editor. I am based in Argentina and made this page about a prominent film here, but it was declined. If you google the film there are tons of articles about it in English and Spanish but I don't know which ones to use as source references. Thank you! Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: you need to use sources that are reliable, first and foremost. Yours are all user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. That means they can't be used to verify the information, or to establish the subject's notability, both of which are core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
I think you also may have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. I've posted a message on your talk page about this; please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do thanks. There are tons of articles about the film in the biggest newspapers in Argentina, so maybe I should make the article in Spanish first? As you can see, these are the most reliable sources we have:
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/personajes/en-fotos-del-proyecto-que-reune-a-sofia-gala-vera-spinetta-y-kevin-johansen-a-la-salida-por-la-noche-nid23042024/
https://www.infobae.com/cultura/2024/10/10/teatro-comunitario-poliamor-y-plan-condor-todo-cabe-en-bajo-naranja/
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/personajes/sofia-gala-castiglione-por-que-descree-de-las-instituciones-la-promesa-de-moria-sobre-su-muerte-y-su-nid09102024/
https://elplanetaurbano.com/2024/05/vera-spinetta-existir-no-es-facil-no-me-resulta-tan-simple/ Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: you can use non-English sources here as well, there's no need to make a Spanish version of the article first, for that reason. (If you'd rather make a Spanish version, that's obviously your call.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oki Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the major source links to the article references. I'll need to know what you consider relevant in order to continue creating and editing wiki pages. Thanks Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: I cannot say succinctly and categorically what is "relevant", but what you're aiming for is to show that the film satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guideline. The sources you need, are those which allow you to demonstrate notability via either route.
If you find that those sources don't sufficiently support the information in the draft, you will then need to supplement them with additional reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for the tips. I resubmitted the entry after adding more key source references. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry should mention the film is called Bajo Naranja in Spanish Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Heck be gone

[edit]

Hi! I created the page but it was declined. May I please ask why so I can edit it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? Thanks! Heck be gone (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Heck be gone. Your draft has three sources, but two of them are to the Hillingdon Herald's own website and the third is from Brunel Uni which hosts the paper. This means none of them are independent of the newspaper.
We usually look for at least three separately independent sources that discuss the topic. Qcne (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks so much for letting me know! :) Heck be gone (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Kat.synergy

[edit]

I haven’t been able to find a specific website that states he has a degree, but I found a link related to the Husky Lunch Network on the UW alumni site. This network connects current UW students with alumni who can offer career advice, networking opportunities, and guidance. While it shows his association with UW, it doesn’t specifically verify his degree in business administration. Would this work as a citation to support his degree, or should I look for a more direct source? Kat.synergy (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kat.synergy: if the only reason you know that this person has a particular degree is that they told you, then you cannot use that; only information supported by reliable published sources can go into an article.
Without seeing the source you're suggesting to use, I can't say categorically whether it would be acceptable, but it sounds like probably wouldn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood—I’ll focus on finding a reliable, published source that specifically verifies the degree rather than relying on self-reported information. I’ll keep looking for something more suitable. Thank you! Kat.synergy (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use LinkedIn to verify his degree? I’m also looking to find a suitable citation for his connection with Sportstalk.com, which is now part of ESPN Insider. What kind of citation would be appropriate for that? Thanks! Kat.synergy (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kat.synergy: no, you can't use LinkedIn, it's user-generated; people could (and do) write anything they want there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I've listed my college major as "alcohol" for like a decade now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's a good point! If I just remove the specific degree and say he graduated from UW, would the alumni site be a suitable citation for that? And for the connection with Sportstalk.com and ESPN Insider, what types of sources would you recommend using? Thanks! Kat.synergy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I just remove the specific degree and say he graduated from UW, would the alumni site be a suitable citation for that? And for the connection with Sportstalk.com and ESPN Insider, what types of sources would you recommend using? Thanks! Kat.synergy (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Userfromtheusa5000

[edit]

I want to make this for my friend, please allow it I never have time to make a sufficient edit to it. Userfromtheusa5000 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Userfromtheusa5000: this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. If you want to write about your friend and his chickens, you need to find an alternative platform for that; there are plenty to choose from, out there in them interwebs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 29 October 2024 review of submission by MountainAccount

[edit]

I need to make sure the page looks good before I resubmit in order for the page to be accepted and go live. MountainAccount (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountainAccount: this draft would not be accepted as it stands, given that it cites only close primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:ORG.
Note that while universities by and large are notable, individual schools/faculties/departments etc. by and large aren't. In other words, merely existing isn't enough of a reason for this school to justify its own article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 secondary articles. Can you please review again and let me know of any other additional needs or if it would be accepted. Thank you. MountainAccount (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @MountainAccount. It looks to me as if none of your sources is independent, in that they are all reproducing what the school says (presumably from press releases).
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.
You should check every source against the criteria in WP:42: if it doesn't meet the reliability criterion, don't use it. If it doesn't meet the indepedence criterion, you may possibly cite it for uncontroversial factual information, but it doesn't contribute to notability. If it doesn't meet the significant coverage criterion, it may possibly be used to verify a specific claim, but it doesn't contribute to notability. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

Hello - I would like to get this author's page up on Wikipedia. Can you help me? TJPR225 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in your draft to suggest that Faust Ruggiero is notable in Wikipedia terms and it is entirely unreferenced so has zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sources now. TJPR225 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TJPR225: We can't cite Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't cite Google Books (no editorial oversight). A quick search shows absolutely no sources we can use (string: "faust ruggiero"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

Can someone please help me get an author's page up? TJPR225 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

I added two sources now.... TJPR225 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TJPR225: please don't spam the help desk, and don't start a new thread with each comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Finlay73

[edit]

I created the page 'Masutaro Otani' in Japanese but actually noticed I used incorrect kanji for the actual translated name but can't seem to be able to change it myself. Hiss actual name as shown on his grave says the following: 増太郎

I hope somebody is able to help me make this change. Finlay73 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay73: This page is for assistance with draft articles on the English-language Wikipedia. To be frank, editors here are vanishingly likely to be able to help with matters on the Japanese-language Wikipedia due to being illiterate in that language. You need to be asking for assistance at ja.wp, not here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Nangthang

[edit]

I coundn't find any articles/publie to use sources other than ZYA Homepage website and their Facebook page. They mainly use Facebook to give updates and other stuff to the community. Nangthang (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nangthang: Then we can't have an article for want of third-party sources that can show the subject is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_29&oldid=1257586457"