Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 7 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 9 >
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 8

[edit]

05:54, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Delirium0nee

[edit]

why was it rejected? Delirium0nee (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly stated by the reviewer, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." See the notability criteria for musicians. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Supreeth Nagella

[edit]

I am unable to comprehend this error. "Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).[1]"

I have already had a look at the provided help page for this error. I followed the instructions, and made the changes. However, I am still left with the same.

Please help me in fixing these errors. This will be very helpful for my article. Thanks. Supreeth Nagella (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreeth Nagella: A couple of other editors have fixed the errors: the issue was that your <ref name> tags used ref names that were numbers (integers) ; the simplest fix is to add a colon before the number, so it's <ref name=":1"> instead of <ref name="1">.
As an aside, I personally prefer to use descriptive names for the references, so if you're using a book by someone called Smith as a source, the reference might be called <ref name="smith">. That makes it much easier to keep track of the references, but it's just my own preference. --bonadea contributions talk 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much to those who have helped me. Thank you for your kind message as well. Supreeth Nagella (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Shafieisabetswiki

[edit]

I would like to receive advice to how edit and complete a reference based document for a researcher Shafieisabetswiki (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia; it is highly recommended to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and their achievements; a Wikipedia page summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the relevant criteria, such as a notable academic.
If you are associated with this person, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Gauravmeh79

[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted a draft for the biography of Indian film director Tejas Prabha Vijay Deoskar, which was declined with feedback citing that the submission does not meet the notability guidelines (WP ) and lacks adequate reliable sources.

I would like to clarify that the references included in the draft are from reputable, independent sources such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, and International Business Times, which provide substantial coverage of Tejas Deoskar’s career and contributions to the film industry.

The primary issue appears to be that some links are referenced multiple times, which might give the impression of inadequate source diversity. However, each reference supports a different aspect of his career (e.g., specific films, awards, or critical reception). I’ve ensured that the content and sources are genuine and relevant, with no reliance on promotional material or unreliable platforms.

I would appreciate guidance on how I can best address this issue to meet Wikipedia’s requirements. Could you please review the sources and offer suggestions for improving the draft to meet the notability standards for film directors?

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best Regards Gaurav Mehrotra Gauravmeh79 (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravmeh79: please see WP:NEWSORGINDIA in general, and WP:TOI and WP:IBTIMES more specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 8 October 2024 review of submission by LiedliSammler

[edit]

An article on the Band "Flame Dream" is already existing on Wikipedia in German. It is my asset to add the story in english. But it is the first time I'm trying to do this. Is there an easy way to it? LiedliSammler (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LiedliSammler: I'm not sure what you mean by "easy way to it", but you should start by finding sources that demonstrate notability, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:BAND notability guideline. Currently the draft is mostly unreferenced, and therefore also has no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time getting citation, references and literature properly placed. Can you help me with simple, understandable instructions? LiedliSammler (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LiedliSammler: I've merged this thread with the previous one; please don't start a new thread with each comment.
You should find everything you need for correct referencing at WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should perhaps also mention that just because an article on this band exists in the German-language Wikipedia, doesn't mean that one will be accepted here on the English-language one. Each language version is a completely separate project with their own rules and policies, and our requirements for referencing and notability are probably the strictest. I'm not saying this to discourage you, but rather to emphasise the importance of strong sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, @LiedliSammler, the German article de:Flame Dream has just two sources, both of them from Prog Archives, which according to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES is a "Non-professional review website, fails WP:USERG".
Thus the German site has zero usable sources as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 October 2024 review of submission by 87.236.135.34

[edit]

Acceptance or rejection timeframe. 87.236.135.34 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. We cannot give you a specific time frame beyond what it already says on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,294 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Charger69

[edit]

Smug response from reviewer ("zero independent sources do zero chance of being accepted") shows they did not look closely at my references.

I removed press releases and there are 2 independent sources in my references:

https://www.findmyhost.com/webhostingblog/email-hosting-provider-greatmail-llc-releases-groupware-edition/

https://www.getmailbird.com/greatmail-partnership-mailbird/

Clearly the reviewer overlooked these or just doesn't want to review my submission fairly.

Please advise. 

Charger69 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies they may be independent but they are certainly not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither is independent and neither is reliable. The first is a blog post that is the obvious result of promotional activity. The second is a blog post from a business partner. There is currently zero evidence that this company is notable, Charger69. As for smug, personal attacks are against policy so stop that now. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure they are independent. Let's just say "zero sources that contribute anything towards notability". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Charger69

[edit]

Bonadea, 6 of the 10 references cited are secondary sources. What is the problem with these sources and how they support the submission? Charger69 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. One source (the first one, a 167-page paywalled report which appears to discuss Greatmail and a number of other companies) is secondary, and it is probably also independent, but it's unlikely to offer significant coverage (though we can't know that as there isn't even a page number in the citation so it's impossible to locate the information). The rest are neither independent nor secondary, and the notability guidelines for companies requires multiple sources that are reliable and secondary and fully independent and offer significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 19:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Meqshercu

[edit]

hello, could you help me find verified sources for the page? or edit it without my response Meqshercu (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Meqshercu, but it is unlikely that any of the volunteers who look at this page will choose to spend their time looking for sources for the draft you want to make. You're the one that wants to create this article, so it's up to you to find the sources.
There is a good reason why experienced editors advise that finding suitable sources (that meet the criteria in WP:42) should be the very first activity in creating an article: because if you cannot find suitable sources, then every single minute you spend working on the draft will be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Mattamizer

[edit]

Hello! I'm working to get a page for Terrible Posture published and I've added a second high quality source which I think fits the criteria, however I would like some clarification on the "multiple published sources". Specifically, how many sources is multiple? Is two sufficient? Or should there be more than five? Does it depend on the page? Thanks in advance! Mattamizer (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattamizer. There is no fixed number. Reviewers generally ask for at least three. Two might be possible if they are both extensive in their coverage of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Charger69

[edit]

Please provide more information. 11 of 16 references are secondary sources supporting the content in the article. Charger69 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatant advertising telling us everything the company wants us to know... garbage like "Greatmail has distinguished itself in the market through its strong stance on privacy. " will NEVER be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note:Draft in question declined yet again for the same reason. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent resubmission without adequately addressing the reviewer comments will result in the draft being rejected, like this example, meaning the draft will not be considered further. I strongly encourage looking over the entire article again, and reading stuff like WP:WTW. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charger69: "This reads more like an advertizement" is an indictment of the article text, not its sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Secondary is one of several requirements, and it is not actually the case that 11 pf the sources are secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_8&oldid=1251292496"