Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 10 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 12 >
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.


September 11

[edit]

02:12, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Gorinu

[edit]

My draft was declined saying 'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).' But i have used reliable sources like news and verified websites. how ca i get my page approved 

Gorinu (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorinu: Government documents (including court documents) are not acceptable sources by dint of them being primary sources. Secondary sources are hard-required. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying Jeske,but i didnt included any court documents in the Draft, can you be more specific please Gorinu (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorinu: Did you even read your sources? Reference 3 is a literal motion to dismiss filed by the United States Department of Justice, and you include a large number of documents from the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants which are intended to be used in connexion with military tribunals. You also cite the United States Department of Defense and the Congressional Research Service, both of which are also government bodies and thus any document they produce is also primary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské, I think the problem here is that the link above isn't correct because of redirect antics. The draft being referred to is not Abdulla_Majid_Al_Naimi, the Bahraini national interred at Gitmo, but to that of Draft:Abdulla_Al_Nuaimi, a CEO in the UAE. It's still not sourced well at all, but for slightly different reasons of inadequacy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources provided don't even mention Al Nuaimi and only a speaking profile and his dissertation go any farther (and aren't really notable sources). You need detailed independent coverage of him, not simply basic business reports involving SecureTech. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 146.255.74.198

[edit]

It has been interesting to do the research behind this article. It is less interesting to spend time on trying to guess which rules and rejections weigh the most. Let's see if some other contributors wish to try and figure it out. I am out for now. If nothing happens, please just delete it all. It will be issued elsewhere. I am sure there are good reasons for the rejections. I just don't understand it, and perhaps there are unofficial (good) reasons? Keep up the good work. Wikipedia is seriously what we need these days. 146.255.74.198 (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please see the comments left by reviewers. As it's hard to find drafts unless you already know they exist, the only one who can improve it is you. If you do nothing, it will be deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My (and other contributors) attempts to find a balance between your rules, your comments and what is truly noteworthy have been rejected ;-) I give up. I will delete my part sooner, unless the other contributors decide to continue. 146.255.74.198 (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once you click "publish changes", the edit belongs to Wikipedia; you can't just remove your contributions just because. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I wanted to remove them, because I think I have compromised too much. Anyway, not too important, if it disappears in half a year. 146.255.74.198 (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Rafiqulalam007

[edit]

May I get any help from some one because I can't understand why my article is declain ? Rafiqulalam007 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiqulalam007: it has been declined because your sources are primary, and what's more, close to the subject. We don't want to hear what the organisation or its affiliates say about it, we want to hear what independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) have said about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, Maybe I have selected wrong. I am not the primary sources and no relation with this Academy. So, What I can do now ? Rafiqulalam007 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafiqulalam007: I meant that your draft cites only close primary sources, whether or not you're affiliated with this organisation yourself. See WP:ORG for details of the sort of sources we need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion for it to work properly. How did you come to edit about this academy if you have no affiliation to it? You didn't pick it at random. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it at Panthapath, Dhaka. And I knew that it is a very good institution those who affiliated with Greenwich University and NCC Programs. Lots of students are graduated from Greenwich University and from this academy I have known. they are well establish in UK and other countries as well. Rafiqulalam007 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Joshakatz

[edit]

I’m trying to write a Wikipedia page about my 12+ year photographic career And what to do everything I can to guarantee it will be published

This is the first time I’ve tried this so any help is greatly appreciated. 

Joshakatz (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshakatz: your various drafts, apart from Draft:Joshakatz, have been deleted. Please don't create multiple copies of the same draft, as that can be considered spamming.
What's more, you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO.
You are also not allowed to promote anything, including yourself. These drafts were purely promotional (see WP:YESPROMO), because they were you saying what you wanted to say about yourself, rather than being based on summaries of what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about you, as Wikipedia articles should be.
My strong advice would be not to go down this road any further, because you're already getting close to being blocked for self-promotion, and to instead continue pursuing your photography career until someone, entirely unconnected to you, will one day write an article about you based on published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Talltrees1

[edit]

Only 0.1% of creative agencies are owned by women and the number of agencies with female creative directors is about 11%. When looking for wikipedia pages of other female graphic designers, there were only 19. Therefore, this article about Georgia Fendley is relevant because women like Georgia tend to be reserved about their accomplishments, which means they don’t always receive the recognition they deserve as designers. She has featured in numerous articles and has made significant impacts over her career, such as; during her time at Mulberry with Emma Hill, when the company’s turnover tripled and the share price rose from £1.50 to a high of £26.00. She has also been responsible for over 20 highly regarded brand identities, she really is an unsung leader in her field. I think Wikipedia should recognise people like this. Talltrees1 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Talltrees1: Righting great wrongs is a noble pursuit (even if it isn't quite the objective of Wikipedia), and there is certainly a lot to be righted in what comes to systemic gender bias, but alas, this draft does not meet our notability criteria and has therefore been rejected. In any case, I don't think you actually asked a question, so I'm unsure what else I could help you with? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Talltrees1 Wikipedia is not intended as a form of recognition for someone and their achievements. It's not an award(quite the opposite, actually, see WP:PROUD). If this person isn't appropriately covered in independent reliable sources, they can't merit an article here, no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. If the reason that there is little coverage is that the person doesn't put themselves out there- we can't control that, and they can't get a pass on sourcing guidelines because of it. I would suggest that you go to the Women in Red project where you might be able to get some advice and guidance specific to what it is you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Nigel PG Dale

[edit]

Having addressed comments back in May 2024 and waited nearly four months, it is unreasonable to have this draft rejected on the grounds of "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The decision is highly subjective from someone I guess who hasn't followed the story of Bill Smith from 1996 to 2024 and onwards. Bill Smith's endeavours ensured that Donald Campbell, an important figure in the UK, was recovered from the lake bed of Coniston Water after thirty-plus years, and laid to rest. Not only that, but in what was described by a Campbell family member as "nothing short of a miracle" Bill Smith with his Bluebird Project meticulously rebuild Bluebird K7 over a twenty-three year period. How can such an achievement be "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia"? This is to say nothing of Smith's other achievements in the pioneering of sides-can sonar deep water searches. Please help me to reverse this unfair rejection. Nigel PG Dale 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel PG Dale: we don't need to have "followed the story of Bill Smith", that's not how drafts are assessed. We evaluate them with reference to the applicable policies and guidelines.
Anyway, you have the necessary user rights to publish this yourself, if you disagree with the reviewer's (reviewers') assessment. Just move it to the main space, and clear out the AfC templates; NPP will then assess it instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel PG Dale: Just be aware that if you do move it into mainspace, you accept all the consequences that arise from doing that, up to and including deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 172.58.182.175

[edit]

Assistance needed with draft for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naheem_Houston

Issue: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. 172.58.182.175 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why the draft was declined. Did you have a question, IP editor? StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 11 September 2024 review of submission by F Ayyub

[edit]

Good evening! Dear Sir. could I know what is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? You know I have no idea about it. I would love to get your expert opinions. Please help me! I need your loving cooperation! Thanks, in advance!

Best regards, FAYSAL AYYUB F Ayyub (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @F Ayyub. As the comment left by the reviewer states, Wikipedia is not a social media website like LinkedIn or a blog. We host articles about notable topics. Your draft was just a bio about you, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 11 September 2024 review of submission by SKumar58

[edit]

ill summit the reliable sources kindly publish the page SKumar58 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 11 September 2024 review of submission by SKumar58

[edit]

ill summit the reliable sources; kindly publish the page SKumar58 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SKumar58 Draft has been rejected, and will not be published. There are no reliable sources evident. Qcne (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:59, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Sparkbean

[edit]

My edit submission was declined, although I only used two reliable sources. Sparkbean (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sparkbean, your sources may be reliable but it didn't prove notability. We're looking for significant coverage in three or more independent reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne, Variety was one of my sources, but I'll expand the draft and add more. Sparkbean (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more sources to my draft. Does it need more review? Sparkbean (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkbean feel free to re-submit for review :) Qcne (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add more sources first. Sparkbean (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 11 September 2024 review of submission by WikiAccount1777

[edit]

Hi there, the article was rejected. Question: the problem was that you need "reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject" or something else? If it is about reliable sources: I gave references but I guess these are not sufficient? WikiAccount1777 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAccount1777: You cannot just slap a bunch of references on the end of a biography of a living person and call it good. You need to properly cite your sources in-line, at claims they can explicitly support. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiAccount1777: the entire purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to provide a reliable published (and usually independent) source which verifies a claim made in the article: nothing else. If it is not clear which claim or claims are being verified, then a citation is a waste of everybody's time. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 2601:80:C983:F7C0:C808:DA82:9465:E9A1

[edit]

Hello,

I was hoping for additional guidance to edit the article I submitted. I appreciate the feedback provided and would like to share my plan for revisions.

I would first review the article and remove any messaging that might be deemed self-promotion to ensure the article is 100% fact-based. I would then shorten the sections about programs and remove most if not all sources that link to the organization's website. Virtually all sources would be external. Do you think this would make the article more likely to be approved?

Given the long history of the organization and its impact on the racial integration of Princeton University, I firmly believe the Princeton-Blairstown Center is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Given the structure and sourcing of another page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Ralph_S._Mason), it seems like Princeton-Blairstown Center certainly meets your criteria.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Scott McKelvey 

2601:80:C983:F7C0:C808:DA82:9465:E9A1 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reads more like a brochure for potential students rather than a neutral encyclopaedia article. As the reviewer noted, the vast majority of your sources are also to Princeton or the Centre itself, which do not help for notability and are useless for any claims a reasonable person could challenge. We also do not accept the extensive quotes you have in the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Scott. 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. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 94.20.97.6

[edit]

I would like to know why my article is rejected. What is the problem exactly ? 94.20.97.6 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This crosses between WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTESSAY. In addition, most of the sources are not reliable (blogs, WP:FORBESCON, commercial sites, conference proceedings, etc.). If resubmitted without substantial improvement with both the content and sourcing, the draft may be rejected meaning it will not longer be considered. Verbatim, with links in original, comment from the last reviewer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked this question yesterday. Will this be a daily habit? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also provided them advice on my talk page and made some updates to the draft. S0091 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 11 September 2024 review of submission by GNVquant

[edit]

I have been advised that 1) "direct listing" should be merged with 2) "direct public offering". I disagree. These are two completely separate ways for a private operating company to go public, along with 3) an initial public offering, 4) merging with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), or 5) doing a reverse merger. Options 1, 3, and 4 typically involve the private operating company raising cash in the process. Options 2 and 5 typically do not involve raising cash. Direct public offerings usually involve tiny companies, but direct listings have included huge companies such as Palantir Technologies ($70 billion market cap) and Coinbase Global ($40 billion market cap). All five of these methods for going public deserve their own entries. GNVquant (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GNVquant You have provided the technical distinction here. Have you expressed that distinction in the draft with a citation that verifies that? I have not visited the draft to check. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Instigo1

[edit]

Vishen is a clan of rajputs and I just made an draft for it , but I don't know why the draft is declined for the submission, I published the Reliable references which connects Bisen or Vishen rajputs to Malla Mahajanapad, and I didn't add any other info. Instigo1 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Instigo1 While you have three references (which I have not checked) you have not assi=ociated the directly with the fact you wish to verify, and it is unfair to expect reviewers to work out what you mean. Please read WP:CITE and WP:REFB for help 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Jattlife121

[edit]

I’ve been working on this draft for over a year, but it keeps getting rejected despite using numerous reliable sources. I’ve successfully created 15-16 other Wikipedia pages, but this one has been particularly challenging to get reviewed. The individual passed away in 1980, so there aren't many newspaper reports available outside of India. However, he is extensively referenced in books about Sikhism. Additionally, the Sikh Gurdwara he founded is already featured on Wikipedia. Could you please advise on what needs to be done to get this draft approved? Jattlife121 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, and you did so, so the next reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, any feedback ? Jattlife121 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 71.219.162.143

[edit]

Hello! I am understanding that a new article for this soda company that was in business for 15 or more years is not of enough interest for a new Wikipedia article? Doing a Google search I found about 5 web pages concerning Canadian Club Corporation. Not much. My interest for this new article is that I found a soda bottle with label (pictured in AFC) for Canadian Club Corporation and looked for it on Wikipedia and did not find it. I thought to myself, I could make the article on Wiki with what I know about the bottle/label/company and invite others to add what they may know. I thought it could add to my knowledge. Thank you for helping with my question. Jim K. 71.219.162.143 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jim, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate database of information and every company to have ever existed: we only host articles on topic we deem notable. Notability is easiest proven through the use of indepth coverage in several independent reliable sources. It looks like this company doesn't meet that threshold. Maybe post about it on a personal blog instead? Qcne (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Qcne. Beautifully put! At least this releases me of the trouble of running my head up against the wall a number of times more. Thank you! What I was finding with this particular product by Canadian Club Corporation was that it seems they were copying another company's idea and was caught at it in a court of law. A story about the soda business of the past was presenting itself as I was trying to put this article together. Thank you for your reply! Jim 71.219.162.143 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jim. That sounds like what a journalist does, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, telling that story would be original research, and not accepted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Warezalex911

[edit]

Hi,

I keep seeing that this page is rejected, despite linking to media organisations and websites about Daniel Bird and his career / television appearances. Any guidance would be great. Warezalex911 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, as opposed to just declined, means that resubmission is not possible. You just documented his work, not summarized significant coverage of him in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assistant Showbiz Editor? Really? Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_11&oldid=1246303018"