Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 3 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 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.


September 4

[edit]

01:43, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Puran Chettri Sikkim

[edit]

Why can't it be published? What are the requirements for passing the review? Also what do I need to do? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puran Chettri Sikkim, this draft appears to be an autobiography. Please be aware that autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and self-promotion is not permitted. Your references are to articles that you have written which are of zero value in establishing notability. Otherwise, every aspiring journalist who has had half a dozen articles published would be notable, which is ridiculous. What would be required are multiple references to reliable sources completely independent of you that devote significant coverage to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Bulawan Museo

[edit]

I have made changes, and changed the article to a neutral point of view. upon submitting and reviewing, the changes were not made. the changes I took time to do, did not register when I clicked resubmit. what to do? Bulawan Museo (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Puran Chettri Sikkim

[edit]

The reason I was rejected is that this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. So what do I need to do next? How can I pass the review? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do at this point rejection is the end of the road for a draft. You were deemed not to meet the criteria for inclusion to a global encyclopedia on notable topics. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it meet the standard? Some of the content included in Wikipedia is very ordinary, but it is included. Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen answered it above and three editors answered in the reviews of the draft. Wikipedia goes by WP:NOTABILITY and you have provided no sources that indicate that the subject of this article (presumably you) passes either the general notability guideline WP:GNG or the more specific one WP:AUTHOR. Just having published articles does not establish notability, and even if it did, there are serious questions about the sources; the first one is a letter to editor, the last one appears to be your blog, and I'm unconvinced that Storify has a reputation as being a verifiable, reliable source (and at least two of them Storify has a disclaimer about their involvement). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do I need to provide more proof to flesh out my content? Also, if Storify cannot be used as proof. but I also use Sikkim Express as proof in my content? are both media outlets not allowed to serve as proof? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing that you can do is go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist and abandon this effort. Almost all people who attempt to write about themselves on Wikipedia do not succeed. This is why it is highly discouraged(though not absolutely forbidden), see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article by you can not be used to support your claim to notability, so it's not a usable source. For there to be an article about you, there must be independent, reliable sources, writing about you in detail. Not things written by you or passing mentions of your name. To have an article about you on Wikipedia, your best course of action is to continue to advance in your career, and should you become notable enough, sure someone will eventually write an article about you. Publicizing your work in your growing career is suitable for social media, not for here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:49, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Bulawan Museo

[edit]

how can I have the biography be approved. I have changed it to a neutral point of view, I have added reliable sources. I just do not get why it can't be submitted? 

Bulawan Museo (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every sentence is peppered with fawning praise.
"esteemed incumbent Governor of Camarines"
"where his leadership was marked by notable achievements and accolades"
"Governor Padilla remains steadfast in his commitment to effecting positive change"
"He is a father of three wonderful kids and a loving husband"
That's just a very small sample, and all inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. now I get it. Thanks. I will rephrase everything and recreate it. Bulawan Museo (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

my draft received following revert:- 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. 

 Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where and how to put a subject that qualifies for a Wikipedia article Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 4 September 2024 review of submission by CreativeWikiWorks

[edit]

Please have a look if every sufficient for submission. Thank you CreativeWikiWorks (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 4 September 2024 review of submission by SwimmersSocial

[edit]

Hi i have just used the assistance of AI to finish and clean up the page but i have also spoken to the Jon (the perosn its about) and he has given statements and said it is all good and all correct 

SwimmersSocial (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate and all entirely unsourced. Please disclose your conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SwimmersSocial: with all due respect, whether 'Jon' approves of what you've written doesn't matter; we need to see everything clearly supported by reliable and independent published sources. In fact, the entire draft should consist of a summary of such sources' coverage of this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

What is the current status of my page draft. Is there anything else that I have to do Adwivedi78 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The status is indicated at the top of the draft; it was declined. Please read that message, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

How get my draft article approved 

Adwivedi78 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

Draft declined citing "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference" 

Adwivedi78 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from starting a new entry for each question. That's four you've opened up in the space fo a few hours.
To answer your questions, no, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. To get your draft article approved, as you were told by the reviewer, you have to demonstrate notability (WP:N) using reliable sources (WP:RS) that cover the subject in detail. The Wikipedia sources are inappropriate and several other sources do not appear to be published by an author working under serious editorial oversight. Most of the remaining sources only briefly mention the subject and do not cover the subject in detail. You should trim the article to only include the sources that appear useful under WP:RS and the article to only things covered by those sources. There's quite a bit that appears to be your opinion, or at least unsourced opinion, such as "highly appreciated," "very important role," and "very promising." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 4 September 2024 review of submission by B.MorganUK

[edit]

I believe there may have been a misunderstanding or oversight in your decision to decline my article.

1 - My article has 20 references properly cited using Wikipedia's visual editor. These 20 resources are independent, non-commercial, and published resources.

2 - While I appreciate your input, I believe that "Remittances to Pakistan", just like existing similar Wikipedia pages such as Remittances to Nepal, Remittances to Bangladesh, Remittances to India, etc., warrant a standalone article for several reasons:

Scope and Depth: Remittances are a significant economic driver for Pakistan, constituting a substantial portion of its GDP. Given the topic's importance and complexity, a dedicated article can provide a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

Clarity and Organization: A standalone article allows for a clearer and more organized presentation of the topic. It can delve into specific aspects of remittance flows, such as sources, recipients, and their impact on various sectors of the Pakistani economy.

Accessibility and Relevance: A dedicated article on remittances makes it easier for readers interested in this particular subject to find the information they need. It also enhances the relevance of Pakistan's economic data and analysis within the broader context of global remittance flows.

Given the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to reconsider my article for publication as a separate Wikipedia article. I will continue to enhance its content and scope over time. Thank you! B.MorganUK (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.MorganUK: I don't think there was any misunderstanding, at least not on the reviewer's part. There are several paragraphs entirely without any referencing - where is all that info coming from? And note that MRC Pakistan and Statista are not considered reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for highlighting exactly what issue caused that decision. I considered the highlighted resources as official and authoritative. Also, I didn't exactly know that we have to cite references for each and every passage. I'll improve my article accordingly and resubmit it for publishing today. B.MorganUK (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@B.MorganUK: strictly speaking, you don't have to support every single statement with a reference. You do, however, have to support every statement that someone might challenge or question, and given that you cannot predict what someone might challenge, in reality everything (beyond self-evident 'sky is blue' type statements) must be referenced. Also, everything you say should come from a reliable source, so why not tell us what that source is; what's the harm in that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I agree 100% - that's understandable and logical. I'll ensure this all in my next edit today. B.MorganUK (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 4 September 2024 review of submission by 2seriouslyblah

[edit]

I have rewritten this article a couple of times but the draft still hasn't been approved. I'm not sure how I can edit the text to have a more neutral point of view as I have already rewritten it and added more citations and took out any language that could sound even remotely close to not neutral. Any help/edits are welcome and appreciated! 2seriouslyblah (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2seriouslyblah: you don't happen to work in marketing, by any chance, do you? ;) (No, don't answer that.)
This draft still has a lot of hyperbole, such as "dedicated", "fundamental linkages", etc., as well as just corporate jargon like "WFD operates under a set of guiding principles, emphasizing the importance of innovative design, accessibility, scalability, data-driven insights, strategic collaborations, and user feedback to enhance digital health solutions." That may all be factually true and correct, but it needs to be said in a more factual manner. Aim for 'dry to the point of boring', rather than 'buzzword bingo'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2seriouslyblah, your draft reads much more like marketing brochure than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Consider this wording: Utilizing digital technologies, WFD strives to disseminate comprehensible information and connect individuals with pertinent resources is just wordy blather that seems to mean that they have some computers and a website. Write concisely, directly and neutrally, eliminating any trace of promotional content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Jack Tarre

[edit]

I'm seeking help moving this article to the Article space. I'm a new, first time writer for Wiki. I penned this piece in March of this year and have done extensive editing to remove any extraneous info and to tighten up the references. It was rejected yesterday and I can't see what needs to be done at this point. Thank you in advance! JT Jack Tarre (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Tarre: this draft has been declined, and you wish to override that and publish it regardless? While that is indeed your right, given that your account is autoconfirmed, it's not necessarily advisable. We don't decline drafts for the fun of it, there is invariably a justification. And just because you don't see what needs improving seems to me like a poor reason to go against the reviewers' feedback. But if you wish to move this into the main article space, that is your prerogative: you do that from 'Tools' menu > 'Move', and then in the dialog box that opens, changing the name space from Draft to (Article) and saving it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that bypassing the review process means you accept any consequences that arise as a result of that, including deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timely reply. I'm not interested in ignoring and overriding the standard Wiki process of approval. I would like to follow the rules and get the best, most accurate article published. At this point it seems to be the sources that are the sticking point. My thinking here is to remove all the sources except the two newspapers, the one TV news program, and the online news/entertainment zine.
Your thoughts on this, please? Suggestions greatly appreciated! Jack Tarre (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
While that is probably not what you want to hear, my experience is that when a new editor plunges straight into trying to create an article, they usually have a frustrating time, partly because they can't understand the feedback they are getting.
If you had just taken up tennis, would you enter a major competition? And if you did, and experts told you why you were not being successful, would you expect to understand their explanation? ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:38, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Emmatrax

[edit]

you have rejected my article saying it is in an essay format so can i get the article format 

Emmatrax (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmatrax: Maybe you're talking about a different draft? The sandbox was declined as having no content what-so-ever (i.e. blank). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmatrax: As I mentioned at your user talk page, your draft appears to be original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Twentyone1111

[edit]

Hi, I used credible sources and corroborated the information where possible. Please assist. Thanks Twentyone1111 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twentyone1111: you may have used some credible sources, but you also have numerous citations of Instagram, which is emphatically not a reliable source, as well as of Amazon, which is a retailer and not arguably a source at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Would it be better to reference the book and the book catalogue number where the information is from, instead of putting the bookstore link? it makes sense. Twentyone1111 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twentyone1111: The books you have mostly cited are two self-published works by closely related authors (Liliane Arnault Berkely and Marie Arnault Berkely). These books are not reliable sources. The draft you have created purports to be about a "Queen of the Royal Wright Family", but there is insufficient context to understand who the Royal Wright Family is. Further investigation shows that there is a John Roper Wright who was created a baronet in 1920. This baronetcy passed to Wright's son William Charles, but then became extinct with William Charles' death. The draft also claims that Dillys is descended from Dinuzulu, the last officially recognized monarch of the Zulu people. Presumably Dillys is now claiming his title, but Instagram and self-published books of questionable scholarship are insufficient sources for Wikipedia to publish such a claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 4 September 2024 review of submission by I have a great knowledge

[edit]

Can someone help me in like creating the introduction and taking out the contents from the references? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I have a great knowledge: what do you mean by "taking out the contents from the references"? Are you asking us to summarise the sources for you? That's something you are expected to do, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk.
When you're citing offline sources, you need to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice on this. And the ISBN number in the last source doesn't seem to work, so I couldn't access it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just straight-up Google the Number without the ISBN and the book will be there, and if you see the calculator, just scroll down until you see a website that has the name "Research Gate" and when you enter, it will say the name of the author and the publisher. However, its in Mizo. And by 'taking out the contents from the references', I meant writing what the sources say about them(the Lusei) I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I have a great knowledge: The onus is on you to do that, and for the record, this falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinental tribes and castes). Note that we cannot trust anything hosted on ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have a great knowledge (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 4 September 2024 review of submission by 75.82.0.68

[edit]

Hello, my submission was declined by "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". I'm confused as to how publications like The Los Angeles Times are not reliable? 75.82.0.68 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is reliable, but that piece is an interview, meaning it is not an independent source- a person speaking about themselves. Interviews do not establish notability; they can be used for other purposes, but not that. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we do not judge a source solely by its outlet; we have to read the content of the source as well. And as 331dot says, an interview published in The Los Angeles Times is as useless for notability as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources - and all of those which are to establish notability - must meet all three criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

This is genuine article and the person we are trying to bring in front of the world is the spokesperson of 3rd national party of the biggest democratic country with 1.4 billion population. So please help us to get this done. Jeswanth2 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeswanth2: this draft has been rejected, as it presents no evidence that the person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We as in volunteers of the political party and supporting one of the national leaders and strongly believe there needs to be a wiki page about the person. Jeswanth2 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADVOCACY of any kind is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I understood, what is the other alternative do I have if not the ADVOCACY, can the the actual author present herself with the provided information? Will you then approve? I am just trying to understand the process here. Please help! Jeswanth2 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_4&oldid=1244944981"