Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 3 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 5 >
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 4

[edit]

02:07, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Samuelzavada

[edit]

It's not clear to me why the draft with this title is being denied. The sources are varied, reliable and secondary. The subject is referenced on multiple Wikipedia pages already (ex. Breaking Benjamin, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Herman J. Mankiewicz, The Badlees, etc.). I'd like to know what needs to be done for the page to meet the standard necessary. Samuelzavada (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Samuelzavada, let's see if I can help out. Going through your current sources, here's what I'm seeing:
Source 1, about the creation of the Hall of Fame, is basically reprinting a statement from the HoF - this doesn't contribute to notability as it's not independent.
Source 2, the 2023 inductees/2024 nominations, is also clearly not independent as it's using all the info from HoF itself.
Source 3, announcing the 2024 class, has information on the inductees - so it would probably be suitable as a source for biographies on them - but I'm not really seeing much about the HoF, just a few snippets of information here and there. It's more focused on the people, not the Hall, if that makes sense.
Source 4, also the 2024 class (Weekender source), is just a list of inductees and has nothing about the HoF, so that's not significant coverage.
Source 5, covering the ceremony, is also almost completely about the inductees rather than the HoF.
To me, it doesn't look like any of the sources are sufficiently focused on the HoF and independent. I know this is probably difficult because of course newspapers and so on are more interested in the people receiving honours, rather than the institution giving them, but I think you are looking for sources that focus solely on the Hall of Fame. If your first source was independent, it would be ideal. Does this make sense to you? StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I think I can work with this. I appreciate the help.
Source 1: So if the article https://www.wvia.org/local/2022-10-20/new-hall-of-fame-established-in-luzerne-county was used as the first source for the establishment of the Hall of Fame, would that be more suitable? The same information is being reported, but it is not in the form of the Hall of Fame’s statement.
Source 2: This source is used specifically for the information that precedes it, which is that nominations can be submitted to the HoF by the public. The HoF is cited in the news story announcing the nomination process, but how else could the nomination process be revealed if not by the HoF itself?
Source 3: Again, this source is being used to say that there were 18 inductees in the class of 2023, and Source 4: is doing the same for the amount of inductees in the Class of 2024 (16). The number of inductees is only information that can be revealed by the HoF. There’s really no way to independently report that from what I know. The number of inductees is announced by the institution, not unlike the baseball, football or rock and roll halls of fame.
Source 5: The information that precedes this source is about the where, when, and happenings of the first ceremony. By this point in the draft, the information is no longer about the Hall of Fame exclusively, but about its accompanying event.
So with the first source now being more independent but still broadly about the Hall of Fame's operations, are we on the right track? Samuelzavada (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Samuelzavada! Okay, so I think I may have been unclear in my last response - if so, I apologize. I'm going to do my best to break down what you're trying to do in creating a draft/article. Please have a read through the various links because they'll have information that should help you.
The goal here is to show that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are not like ordinary standards. The way to do this is to locate and use sources that meet 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). Usually three or more sources are required for an article to come into existence.
For you, I think, the main problem at the moment is that your best sources are not independent - the first one reprints information directly from the Hall, but the new one is full of interviews and statements from people who have a stake in the Hall. It's still not independent. The source you want would be someone who's just wandered into town and been so impressed by the Hall that they decide, off their own bat and without talking to anyone involved, to write an article. I know this can be hard to find, because not many things are so interesting and impressive that someone decides to just go ahead and write about it - that's why most things aren't on Wikipedia.
If you Google the HoF, what comes up? If all you get are interviews with the founders, or lists of inductees, or reprints of information from the Hall, then it might be too soon to write about it.
I don't want to discourage you, but I do want to say that writing a draft/article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. There are plenty of veteran editors who haven't ever written an article, just edited some of the millions we already have. As a last link, I'm going to point you to Your First Article, which will hopefully cover anything I've missed. If you have more questions after reading through all of that, we're always here to answer and happy to try to help! :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks again for helping out. I really do appreciate it.
I'd direct you to a trio of pieces that are Hall of Fame-adjacent. The Hall of Fame was not involved in these things being posted.
- The video here is a newspaper publisher discussing the event on television. She's not on the Hall of Fame's selection committee. Her use of "we" in the context of the video is somewhat erroneous: https://www.pahomepage.com/pa-live/sponsored-content/extra-extra-luzerne-county-arts-entertainment-hall-of-fame-show-to-rock/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFtLB9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXinU94wWwuBwMDf23SmEgxsOT6fK3yITclr_9U4YC6PVGjIrRDzEv0BwA_aem_c8HVgyghb3izXzLUSA-gvg
- The video at this address is from a guest at the induction ceremony who accepted the award on behalf of an inductee, but is not an inductee himself or the descendent of an inductee: https://www.ssptv.com/what-s-new
- This opinion piece was written by the editors of a newspaper who have no immediate stake in the Hall of Fame, other than some of the reporters being connected to Hall of Fame. But the editors themselves are not affiliated with the Hall of Fame's selection or main organizing committees: https://www.timesleader.com/opinion/1624284/luzerne-county-arts-and-entertainment-hall-of-fame-event-a-glittering-success?fbclid=IwY2xjawFtK_NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHV_ynvnPRYja5rqk3UHjpF4wA7LcvZUL3PUjRK2yu_YLGBn64Umn-LJq2A_aem_mmS4tPCpsuG9GTErVqhxrw
Just for context, I tried to find other sort-of niche Halls of Fame to see a real example of a source like you're describing. In searching, I noticed that the following page has only sources directly from the Hall of Fame and what appears to be its overseeing body (The State Library of Queensland): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Business_Leaders_Hall_of_Fame
Why would these sources, which are even more direct than the ones I've proposed for the LCAEHOF, be accepted by Wikipedia's standards?
Last thing I'd like to point out as far as notoriety, and I know this isn't exactly what the the guidelines are referring to, but Wikipedia itself has made the Hall of Fame more notable by containing pages for numerous LCAEHOF inductees. Those include Joseph and Herman Mankiewicz, Breaking Benjamin, The Badlees, George Catlin, Jack Palance, and more. So it seems slightly counter-intuitive to have each of these notable figures with an individual page, but an accomplishment they've each received goes unnoticed. Further, the LCAEHOF is mentioned on Wikipedia's articles for the following:
The Badlees
Breaking Benjamin
The Buoys
George Catlin
Hammond Edward "Ham" Fisher (Ham Fisher)
Jimmy Harnen
Santo Loquasto
Jack Palance
Eddie Day Pashinski
Adrian Pearsall
Lee Vincent
Franz Kline
Shawn Klush
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Legends of WARMland (WARM AM)
All of this is to say that Wikipedia has already offered some legitimacy to the LCAEHOF by allowing it to be mentioned on 16 of its existing pages. Samuelzavada (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That a topic is mentioned in an article or articles does not in and of itself mean it merits an article of its own. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that makes sense to me. But I'd contend that this isn't just a random, unsourced detail or phrase that just happens to be on more than one page. It's a very specific thing that multiple artists with the Wikipedia seal of approval have accomplished. Samuelzavada (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So one fun thing to keep in mind is that a lot of articles were created when Wikipedia was young and standards were much lower - a kind of Big Bang where articles exploded into existence with little or no sourcing. The Queensland Hall of Fame article was created in 2017 and it wouldn't get past the draft stage if it were going through the process today. I'm going to have a look for better sources, and if none are found, I'll nominate it for deletion. That might sound harsh, but this is what's meant to happen to subpar articles, and you're helping improve Wikipedia by pointing out something that's a problem. This is what I mean by a lot of articles; there are literally millions of articles and not enough editors to patrol them all. We need more people to point out the problems so we can fix them! Using other articles as an example can be a hazard for this reason. If you want to keep looking, see if you can find articles with a Good Article or Featured Article tag (either a green plus sign/circle or a gold star in the top right) - those have been vetted by the community and are considered to be, uh...Good Articles. I did a search for 'hall of fame' and found Hockey Hall of Fame and WWE Hall of Fame, so maybe those will be helpful? Obviously they're not niche HoFs, but they would be good examples to model yours on.
Looking at the sources you've offered:
1) Video with the publisher, PA Homepage - alarm bells go off for me when I see 'sponsored content', because that immediately says to me it's no longer independent or reliable. Someone has paid for this content. It's great that the website makes this so clear, but this won't help for notability.
Pausing for a second here to also say that most of these sources could be used for information - you can get uncontroversial information like a list of inductees from a subject's website or interview or whatever - but what you really want right now is 'golden rule' sources that count for notability. A draft could have a hundred sources that give information, but without three good sources for notability it won't become an article. Now back to the sources:
2) Video about Jack Palance - we tend to shy away from YouTube videos because we can't know how much (if any) editorial oversight takes place for the channel, and how much fact-checking they do. I did skip through it anyway, and it seemed to be focused on the actor, which is of course perfectly reasonable for giving/accepting an award for him, but less helpful for the Hall of Fame.
3) Now this one I'm less positive on, and maybe someone else would disagree, but I see 'We at the Times Leader were proud to be involved in the project, which was especially important to one of our own, reporter and columnist Bill O’Boyle. He and local music legend Joe Nardone Sr. were recognized with Founders Awards...' and again 'independent' seems to go out the window.
I know it probably seems like I'm discarding things for weird reasons, but my hope is that if I can explain to you why various sources won't be accepted, you'll be able to figure out whether new ones you find are good - and also get an idea of whether this draft is viable. I really appreciate you taking the feedback in the spirit it was intended; if this draft can become an article, I'm more than happy to (virtually) sit with you until it's in the mainspace. And of course if you'd like me to step back and get some feedback from someone else, I won't be offended at all - just let me know and I'll try to rustle someone else up to help out. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Dsultaan4

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted an article about Arun Adhikari, a notable artist known for his work in television and films. Unfortunately, the article was flagged for speedy deletion under the criteria for promoting a person or entity. I would like to contest this decision as the intent of the article was to provide an encyclopedic account of Arun Adhikari’s career, achievements, and contributions to the entertainment industry.

I understand Wikipedia’s guidelines on avoiding promotional content, and I am willing to revise the article to better align with Wikipedia's standards. Could you please advise on the specific changes that are needed to ensure that the article meets the criteria for inclusion?

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your guidance.

Best regards, Sultan Dsultaan4 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dsultaan4, if you wish to contest the speedy deletion, there's a button on the draft page you need to click. Do that first, right now, and then we can help you see the promotional wording in the draft. StartGrammarTime (talk)

06:54, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Searching Nan

[edit]

I am currently working on a biography for Aniyan Midhun, a notable individual with extensive references and verified details. However, his profile is still not recognized on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your guidance on what additional steps I can take to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and gets published. Searching Nan (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Searching Nan Do you have some form of WP:COI on this topic, please?
The draft has been rejected. This means it has reached the end of the road unless you can prevail on the rejecting reviewer to change their mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three deletion discussions plus extensive review of your rejected draft show that there is widespread consensus that this person is not notable. You need to abandon this effort. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:17, 4 October 2024 review of submission by WikiMeets

[edit]

Please reevaluate the new sources thank you. WikiMeets (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiMeets It was suggested to you that a total rewrite was required. Nothing has happened here since that suggestion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been rewritten, waiting for approval. WikiMeets (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiMeets When the ship is sinking, rearranging the deckchairs is somewhat pointless.
I see nothing than indicates any new material since its rejection, and no new references.
I suggest you abandon this effort of editing and do what is suggested - a total rewrite - starting with referencers. This is written WP:BACKWARDS.
If you can find references which show notability, then, and only then, write the article in a new draft, saying in your won words what others say about the organisation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the alleged rewrite(!) was posted after my messages of 08:20 UTC today. With the greatest possible respect, please state with precision whom you are trying to fool? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:28, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Bfkamo

[edit]

i am new in article writing so plz help me to create a article Bfkamo (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is written almost like a travel brochure, and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For travel brochures, there's always Wikivoyage. (Kind of a moot point, as the page already got deleted under G11.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Ashthetic

[edit]

I keep getting feedback that the sources listed here are not reliable and I'm looking for guidance on why they're unreliable, and what are examples I should be including instead. The Real Deal is a news outlet focusing on real estate and is constantly sourced in this submission; I'm wondering if that's why it's not considered reliable. I am unsure why because they are editorial pieces, and go through an editing process with multiple editors. Would appreciate any guidance! Ashthetic (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashthetic Without going into them in detail, any reference that is a Press Release, or a PR Piece (often regurgitated as churnalism) is useless for verifying notability, Any reference mainstream media, provided it contains significant coverage (three or more well constructed paragraphs), is independent of the subject, and is about the subject is useful. Directly entries may verify uncontroversial facts, but add no value to notability. WP:42 is a decent shorthand to understanding. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Brightest Child

[edit]

What can I do for my page to be published? Brightest Child (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brightest Child: waiting two years until the mixtape is actually released would be a start. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And PS: once a draft is rejected, you're not meant to submit again; that's what rejection means – the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 50.34.35.185

[edit]

This is a draft. is it not? Big balls is a placement. 50.34.35.185 (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As a matter of fact, it's more than just a draft - it's a deleted one. Use the sandbox for test edits. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 37.201.193.229

[edit]

I need some help on improving the article. Could someone please give me more details on where references are missing, poor or unreliable? Is it problematic if an encyclopedia entry for a software program describes the detailed functions? Shouldn't that be a core task of the entry? I really appreciate your help. 37.201.193.229 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To start with your last question, a 'core task' of a Wikipedia article is indeed to describe the essential features of its subject, as well as (importantly) what makes it noteworthy. Listing product features, technical details, etc. is not appropriate, those are best left for (in this case) the software's own documentation and marketing literature.
I don't know what exactly the last reviewer had in mind ( Courtesy ping: AlphaBetaGamma?), but I note that one of the sources is an undergraduate-level dissertation or similar, which is not acceptable. Also, five of the 14 citations are to the company's own website(s), which is effectively the subject telling the world about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer and the detailed description. These are some objections that I really understand. I will try to improve it. 37.201.193.229 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 4 October 2024 review of submission by MJGTMKME123

[edit]

I don't know which information to include in the infobox. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123: populate those fields for which you have reliably-sourced data, skip the rest. In any case, infoboxes, images, and other such bells & whistles are purely optional, and aren't needed for the review process which mainly considers notability and verifiability.
You need to attend to the referencing, though, as it's currently throwing multiple errors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok MJGTMKME123 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 4 October 2024 review of submission by EBKSace

[edit]

I need help moving a article to main space EBKSace (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content? Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Alexbrown5566

[edit]

Dead links have been removed. How to improve further? Alexbrown5566 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrown5566 Back office officials have to be very special to pass our criteria. I have my doubts that he does. Your job is to prove that he does. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Shadowkiller222

[edit]

like to know why i can not upload it because its has nothing about the person without his consent Shadowkiller222 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. An article subject does not need to consent to information about them being on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if the subject did consent, that raises questions about your connexion to him and whether or not you should be required to disclose that connexion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 43.241.67.185

[edit]

Why my article was disappointed may I know the reason I wrote my daily routine only Please crose check once and update it. 43.241.67.185 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has articles about notable topics. It is not a platform for publishing CVs or personal profiles. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 4 October 2024 review of submission by DashaHouston401

[edit]

I am trying to write an article about a small businessman and im not understanding why it keeps being deleted, I've tried for days to figure it out. DashaHouston401 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, so I can't see the deleted draft. But I can read the messages on your user talk page, which say that it read like unambiguous advertising.
Please 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.
Writing a Wikipedia article begins with finding sources such as that - wholly independent of the subject, and published in reliable places (see WP:42 for more detail).
If at least three such sources can be found, then it is worth creating a draft, in which you summarise what those independent sources say about the subject, not what the subject wants to say about themselves.
Does that make it clearer? ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DashaHouston401, your draft was an utterly promotional biography written in the style of a hagiography, violating the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. Vast swathes were unreferenced, violating Verifiability, another core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 4 October 2024 review of submission by MisaHinasaki

[edit]

need help with sources, as there are practically none for Schoolgirl Supervisor MisaHinasaki (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't provide sources for you. If you can't locate appropriate sources, the topic would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 98.15.215.82

[edit]

Not useful draft 98.15.215.82 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about Adolf Hitler. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Korrikabbab

[edit]

So for my refrence im using a roblox url but its black listed and i really need it because its my only refrence i have Korrikabbab (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then your game does not merit a Wikipedia article. That's why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. You might want to try something like a Fandom wiki about game mods or Roblox in particular. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


refrence help Korrikabbab (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did not mean to do this ignore please. Korrikabbab (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Korrikabbab

[edit]

Wont let me publish it again whenever it said submisson rejected after i added my refrences Korrikabbab (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected and cannot be submitted again. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Star Mississippi 02:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_4&oldid=1250561488"