Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 8 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 10 >
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 9

[edit]

04:49, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Gfunkera1999

[edit]

This article keeps getting rejected despite properly listing notable references including a verified music site biography. My article was rejected and I am unable to resubmit. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware it has been rejected an will not be considered further however I want to know what I did wrong after providing all necessary information and sources as well as how can I get a page approved. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfunkera1999: there is nothing to suggest that the subject is notable, and certainly no evidence of this, as you're only citing primary sources. The information is also inadequately supported by referencing, although that wasn't the reason the draft was rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a helpful reply all, respectfully. All you did was repeat the information provided. I’m asking for details so that I know exactly why it’s not considered notable despite provided references. Since they rejected my article after multiple attempts. I’ve tried to research endless possible causes and they were rejected every time. These references come from notable sources in music. Like you unnecessarily stated, my article wasn’t rejected due to “inadequately supported referencing” so what is it? Those are my actual questions. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the four sources provided is reliable and independent and secondary. Thus, she is not shown to be notable. None of the references has been added after the piece of information it supports. Thus, it is inadequately supported. If any of the sources had been useful, the inadequate support would have been reason enough to decline it again. As notability has not been shown after repeated resubmissions, the only reasonable course was to reject the draft.
I know that you had already been given all that information, but there is literally nothing more that we can tell you. The info is all there in the decline/rejection notices and the comments. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you understand that you’re feeding me the same information. It’s like talking to bots at this point. When people comment on here looking for answers after getting continuously rejected, they want to know what exactly is deemed a reliable source? Since you and Wikipedia claim that the ones provided are not. I see previous users above me were also given short, useless and repetitive information with no real direction or guidance of any kind. Some even have a slight attitude which is crazy. Let me break it down really quick for you and all of the Wikipets: To the average user, any artist with verified music accounts and a large audience would be considered notable therefore, why not better explain what exactly IS considered notable. You could get thru to people a lot better that way, just a tip. Lastly, the term independent sources is understood however, some artists pages have listed Instagram posts as sources so that still leaves the user confused. It is unclear how a source such as a verified Genius biography is not “reliable” but sources such as Instagram are in terms of notability. NO NEED FOR FURTHER REPLY. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you need to know about notability, reliable sources, etc. is contained in the decline and rejection notices, if you just bothered to follow the links therein; however, it seems you would rather rant here. We can only point you toward this information, we cannot understand it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people reviewing drafts and responding on this help page are all volunteers. We do this because we want to improve the encyclopedia. And our assumption, unless/until we are proven wrong, is that the editors who write and submit drafts and ask for help are also here to improve the encyclopedia, as opposed to simply wanting a particular article added for the sake of the article's subject. The templated decline notices all contain a lot of information, and many people don't understand they are expected to read that information carefully, following the links therein. A majority of the questions asked on this board are best answered by pointing to where the question is in fact answered (such as the policy and guideline pages about verifiability, reliable sources, and so on.)
As an aside, when you reply to I know that you had already been given all that information, but there is literally nothing more that we can tell you. with I don’t think you understand that you’re feeding me the same information. it suggests that you may not be reading all the responses that carefully. --bonadea contributions talk 08:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfunkera1999: CliffsNotes for WP:N: We require multiple in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject-and-their-surrogates news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length and are subject to fact-checking and other robust editorial processes. Discogs has no editorial oversight, Viberate is a content-free profile that tells you jack squat about Noxious, your Genius link uses the Discogs URL (and Genius isn't the best source to be using for this anyway), and En El Mapa is her record label and thus is considered a surrogate for her. If you're claiming you haven't been told what we're looking for after this point, then Wikipedia is not the place for you; we are under no obligation to help a user who refuses to accept valid criticism or read pages they have been pointing to that explain what they need to do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Sropfilms

[edit]

why my articles are not accept Sropfilms (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sropfilms: No sources, no article, no debate. We can't cite social media. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished reading an article of a music artist who has Instagram referenced. To @Sropfilms, don’t waste your time on here with these people and just see if you can do more research on how you should be formatting and citing the information you provided. These individuals are not going to help you rather just give you short answers with no real answers or support. I advice all other users who come here for answers to just do your research instead. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use this forum to air your grievances, and in any case please do not do so by posting in other users' threads.
If you're dissatisfied with your experience of trying to use Wikipedia to promote a musician, may I suggest you find an alternative platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gfunkera1999 That you saw this doesn't mean that it is permitted. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. This does not mean we want more inappropriate articles added. We can only address what we know about. We will help people who are here to improve this encyclopedia and not engage in promotional activities, and are willing to learn our policies. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Evie and Oscar

[edit]

My draft keeps getting flagged. Evie and Oscar (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evie and Oscar: what do you mean "keeps getting", it was declined once?
It is very promotional in tone and content, reads like it came from the firm's marketing department.
Speaking of which, what is your relationship with this subject?
One more thing: your user name suggests there are two individuals using the account. Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by one person only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Aloofmanish

[edit]

Seeking Assistance to Enhance My First Wikipedia Article on a Notable Swimmer I'm attempting to create a new article on Wikipedia, but it's not getting approved. This is my first time writing an article, and the subject is a Guinness World Record holder. There are numerous articles about him on various websites and in newspapers, and he has accomplished many significant achievements. Therefore, I believe the subject is notable enough to be published on Wikipedia. However, I'm unsure where I'm going wrong. Could someone guide me on how to improve the article? Aloofmanish (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Anshuman Jhingran has no sources and no indication of passing WP:GNG, holding a Guinness Book of Records is not inherently notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aloofmanish I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources, that's what the draft should be summarizing, and you should provide those sources in line with the text, see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks So much Aloofmanish (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 October 2024 review of submission by P.V. Anirudh Reddy

[edit]

i want to publish my research paper on the wikipedia website i want people to learn and research about it ,Hence I Want you to approve my paper and correct it as i am student of grade 8 Cbse it is very crucial for me to research on the topic mentioned above

thanking you P.V Anirudh Reddy P.V. Anirudh Reddy (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.V. Anirudh Reddy Wikipedia is not a place to publish your research paper, sorry. See original research. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P.V. Anirudh Reddy: Is your instructor making you do this? If so, are they operating in coordination with WikiEd? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Achelminsky

[edit]

Dear Kylie Tastic: It has recently come to my attention that an AChelminsky is seeking to publish a Wikipedia page where I am the subject. I've had a chance to review this proposed page, and I can state that everything AChelminsky has included is 100% accurate. All the information is factually correct. If you like, I am happy to authenticate any or all of the information through my attorney. Achelminsky (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achelminsky I'm a bit confused as you seem to be speaking about yourself in the third person. Only a single person should be operating your account. The accuracy of the information is not at issue. Your approval or confirmation is not required for others to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you and how you are a notable creative professional.
Beware in invoking attorneys, see no legal threats.
If you want to address KylieTastic directly, please use their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Achelminsky: Anything the subject or their associates say does not matter for our inclusion criteria, which are based solely on the presence and depth of third-party news/review/scholarly sources. We also hard-require said sources when writing about living people. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of the sources provided help towards notability as we define it, and in fact we can't use the vast majority of them. The decline looks appropriate. We absolutely cannot work on "just trust me, bro" for claims about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Baker235

[edit]

I am confused why this article is being repeatedly rejected despite providing an equal level (if not now greater) extent of notable references than the Results of the 2008 Queensland local elections and Results of the 2016 Queensland local elections articles. As this is a list of election results for an event that has an accepted article with 2012 Queensland local elections (where notability of the election is apparently established with a single reference to the ECQ's results page) why is this specific article not suitable when it is consistent with the accepted standards of other lists of results for Australian elections?

In this case, isn't the use of the Electoral Commission of Queensland's results reporting a suitable use of a primary source to make a "[statement] of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" as stated on Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)? This list provides a statement of results (i.e. facts) with effectively no analysis/commentary of the effects of said results in the list. The commentary on these results (referencing secondary sources) should then to be made on said main article(s) as is done for these elections in other years. Baker235 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Apriltools

[edit]

This is an article about a one of a kind product. Yes, it is a product, but it is a notable product.

Can I get some help / pointers on structuring the article to get past the "reads like an advertisement" canned response in AfC. The product reviews are what makes the product WP:N. People actually took the time to write about the product on reliable sources.

Apriltools (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first line- "novel guitar accessory" is not WP:NPOV.
The reviews should be written as prose, not as a list of quotes, and the prose should explain what makes this notable. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 9 October 2024 review of submission by AleFalgheri

[edit]

Hello Guys, I recently passed my draft to submission to later pass it as an article in the encyclopedia, but it was recently rejected. Could you support me in knowing why? I still accept ideas and collaboration in it? Thank you very much in advance AleFalgheri (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, I have already posted a question to ask for help in this task, if you like to collaborate with me any feedback is welcome. AleFalgheri (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AleFalgheri I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot. AleFalgheri (talk) 21:11, 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_9&oldid=1251292703"