Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 March 20

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< March 19 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 21 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


March 20

edit

03:22:22, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Ironalien

edit

I do not understand why this article draft is considered not to have enough external references, given that other game engine articles, such as Retro Engine, Snowdrop (game engine) and Fox Engine have a similar article citation status (no scholarly articles, only specialized gaming press coverage). Both Snowdrop and Fox are used only in a handful of triple-A games, just like the Foundation Engine. Ironalien (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironalien Greetings. Please read the grey pane on the top of the draft page which states the reason why the page was rejected. In addition all the sources you provide do not talk "directly" about the subject in length and in dept. Kindly click the blue highlighted texts for further info in detail. There are many articles that do not pass notability guidelines which should not not in the main space of Wikipedia as reviewers and editors have yet to have noticed / have time to look into them to nominate those articles for deletion - pls see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. We recommend editors to look at good articles as the examples for well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in independent, reliable coverage articles. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:24:35, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Chetnaphour

edit



Chetnaphour (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:38, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Peter025

edit


Hi , I am requesting a re-review because I feel that she has got significant coverage by different sources. There are entire articles written with her as the subject(not a passing reference ). Everything in those articles are about her . With all due respect , I am unable to understand how much more can a person have as significant coverage than have entire articles in the news on themselves. References 13-16 are all articles with her as the main topic.There are more but as the reviewer might be short on time so I have recommended these.The titles themselves have her as the subject.

So ,therefore , please can you re-review and if you deem it "not notable " yet again , PLEASE PLEASE can you explain to us in detail as to what more can be done instead of a few lines? I understand editors have hectic schedules and other articles to review but if details for improvement are mentioned in detail then maybe next time around we might be able to present to you a draft that satisfies all notability guidelines.

Thank you . Peter025 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter025, one of the problems with drafts like this one is that there is so much referenced from sources that aren't reliable that it's difficult for other editors to see which sources do prove notability. Adding sources that aren't reliable to provide more and more and more references that aren't reliable or aren't significant won't help; in fact makes things worse.
Are you saying references 13-16 are the best references that show significant coverage in reliable sources? --valereee (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, going through refs: #13 is Tellychakkar, which according to a discussion on WP:RSN appears to be the media relations arm of a PR firm. That is not a reliable source, and even if it were the story is very short. Ref# 14 is thequint.com, which looks like it's basically reliable, but it's also a very, very short piece. Probably wouldn't even help to support notability, it's so short. Ref# 15 is Times of India, so that's a reliable source. It's a pretty short article, but might support notability if there were many such articles. Ref# 16 also a very short piece, maybe enough to support notability claims if there were other significant coverage. That source, IWMBuzz, doesn't seem to have ever been mentioned in the reliable sources noticeboard archives, which makes me very suspicious of it.
If these are the best articles you can find, you will not prove notability with them. I'm sorry, but this young woman doesn't appear to be notable yet. --valereee (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup, I see that you are using "please can you explain to us" and "we might be able." Often this means you are writing this as a representative of the article's subject. If you or your firm are employed by Ms. Singh or by someone who represents her, you must disclose your WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST on your user page. --valereee (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Valereee , THANK YOU for the very prompt reply .

1)I would firstly like to clarify that I am neither Ms.Singh's representative nor employed by her. I don't even live in the same part of the world she lives in . The only reason I used those words" we and us " was because currently there are 3 different editors on this draft including me , so I just grouped us all together as we had been collaborating and trying to make sure every section in the draft is the best possible version it is .

2) Secondly , THANK YOU . THANK YOU SO SO MUCH . Atleast now we do understand what kind of sources might be reliable eg, Times of India and Quint and how much of significant coverage should be present .

3) Thirdly, there are articles of the kind you mentioned from some other reliable sources and I don't think that articles of references 13-16 are the best . I did see some articles by Times of India which were pretty much similar to articles from other references on this draft but I felt no need to cite them as they were pretty much the same but I will clearly have to change them now. Also in my experience (cross checked with references in other TV celeb pages ) I have usually never seen really long articles for other TV celebs as well. Articles in India for TV Celebs unlike for TV Celebs in Europe and America are of short to medium in length . Articles usually are short to medium and have the same standard format of introducing the actor and then a few lines said by them are written . They also usually talk a few lines about the show which the actor currently works on and all in all articles aren't really long.

4)IWMBuzz was previously known as Indian Wiki Media . Maybe you might have heard of it with that name .Is there a list of sorts of reliable sources allowed or any place where we can see a few names of reliable sources of India ?

5)So basically PR firms and any other similar organizations that can provide coverage about a person are a big NO NO. I hope I got that right . I have read the guidelines on Reliable Sources again just now but I just want to confirm.

Lastly THANK YOU SO SO VERY MUCH WITH YOUR PROMPT REPLY and HELPING US ACHIEVE SOME KIND OF IDEA on how to go about from this point onwards. Thank you for taking time out of your hectic schedule and reviewing it . I hope that someone reviews our draft again when and if the changes are made with the same amount of promptness . Might just be pushing mu luck there...LOL!

Regards --Peter025 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter025, if it were me -- and this is just my own personal advice, not any kind of wikipedia policy -- I would find my three best sources. Three sources that are all both 1. unimpeachably reliable (you can ask for help assessing sources at WP:RSN) and 2. provide SIGNIFICANT coverage -- that is, a lengthy article that is about her or mostly about her, not just short mentions or quotes. Then write the article based on those sources, and once you've got it written, ask the good people at WP:Teahouse (a great resource for new editors) if someone would take a look at it for you to assess notability. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU Valereee for your very very prompt reply AGAIN! . I honestly didn't even know that . I just want to clarify, when you mean about her you mean about Ms.Singh generally , not about her going to a wedding or some specific topic . Am I correct? Also is it alright if the articles aren't really long as there seem to be a shortage of long articles for TV celebs in India generally . THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN for your VERY PROMPT REPLY!!
Hi Peter025. With regard to your fourth question, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources and more generally Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce THANK YOU for answering the fourth question. I just looked at it and the pages clearly looked to be of great help . Thank you so very much and for taking your time to provide the links . --Peter025 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:15, 20 March 2019 review of draft by Mushroomsareforeating

edit


Please tell me when this can be approved? Thanks

Mushroomsareforeating (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mushroomsareforeating. As the big yellow box on the draft says, there are 2600+ drafts awaiting review. At the present rate you can expect the draft to be reviewed in the next two months or so. Drafts often aren't approved on their first review (indeed, something like 80% of drafts are never approved); you'll just have to wait for the review to see. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:34, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Brunapickler

edit


Brunapickler (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:50, 20 March 2019 review of draft by Barbaro Montiel

edit


Barbaro Montiel (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I would like to Know what is wrong with this Wikipedia page[reply]

Barbaro Montiel, so far it doesn't seem to have been reviewed, so I don't see anything saying there's anything wrong with it? What are you seeing that makes you think someone has already indicated there's something wrong with it? --valereee (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see on your talk page that an editor has moved the article to draft space with the comment that the article reads like promotional content -- is that what you're asking about? --valereee (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:19, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Kamalkantdivya

edit


Kamalkantdivya (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:14:23, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Kamalkantdivya

edit


Kamalkantdivya (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice submitted a blank draft, there is nothing to review? Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:19:08, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by WinnyHuangatEcontact

edit


Hi! I would really like to see the complete lyrics to Georg Friedrich Handel's Messiah on Wikipedia. I could not find it....so ended up googling individual movement's lyrics on other websites (there are 53 movements) and compiled them in one page and submitted it for Wikipedia review. The draft is called The Complete Lyrics to The Messiah by Georg Friedrich Händel. But it was understandably declined..well it is my first time doing this...so I am not surprised. The thing is how do I go about making this article suitable for Wikipedia? Any suggestions? Also I really don't care who did it as long as it is done. Can someone in Wikipedia make the complete Lyrics to Handel's Messiah accessible so no one would have to google individual songs and find lyrics for different songs at different sites? I really searched hard in Wikipedia for this but could not find the complete lyrics....I found description for each movement of the Messiah...but not word for word lyrics...so please help!

Thank you for reading this long long message. And thank you for any input you may have.!


WinnyHuangatEcontact (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It might be appropriate here though, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WinnyHuangatEcontact: You cannot make the draft suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a repository of complete lyrics. Complete lyrics in the public domain may go into Wikisource, but not Wikipedia. Messiah is already in Wikisource, so you are reinventing the wheel. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:59, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Brunapickler

edit


Brunapickler (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunapickler: - this biopic doesn't include anything that would make the individual, by Wikipedia's standards, WP:NOTABLE. Re-writing and re-phrasing won't change that. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:09, 20 March 2019 review of draft by Student245

edit


I am making a Wikipedia page on this person for a assignment for my class. I am very new to Wikipedia so I am still learning how to correctly create this article. I have means to go back and edit this article continuously, but the only option I was given to saving the work was to publish and I really just wanted to save what I had. If there is a way to just save the draft without publishing until the article is fit for submission, how do i save my draft so i wont get deleted? Again, the only reason I am a user on here and making a article is due to a assignment given by my instructor to write a article on a artist in the field of electronic media who has no wiki page and or create a mock wiki and write up some research on them. How do you save a draft page without publishing?

Student245 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Student245: - hi there. This is one of the easiest mistakes to do with drafts. Almost everyone does it at some point.
On the plus side, going to "edit", editing, and now hitting "publish changes" won't submit it for review. That phrasing is required by Wikimedia to indicate that your words will be open to the public once you write them (though you'd have to know it was there to find it, at this point).
Keep making edits until you're happy with the draft. At that point, hit the blue "Resubmit" button in the red box on the page and it it will come back for review. Hope that helps! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear:- Thank you, But will Wikipedia save my work even if I log off or do I need to save my writing somewhere for safe keeping? Like I am not kidding, I am new to this site and just want o do make sure nothing gets lost.
@Student245: - sorry for my slow reply, your tag was fine, I've no idea why I wasn't pinged.
Yes - so long as you've updated your draft (or sandbox, etc) by saving/publishing changes, then it will be retained if you log off. If you disappear for 6 months then it will get tagged for removal, but we'd rather not lose you for that long! Nosebagbear (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:22, 20 March 2019 review of submission by John-Ware-wiki

edit


John-Ware-wiki (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  Not doneThis was a totally shameless advertisement, and has been deleted as such. Author has been warned about spamming and COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:59, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Scifietronica

edit


I thought I might get a rejection but it came before I could complete my Talk explanation of the rationale for the article. Please see my comments in the Talk section. I believe my Talk comments/article justification answers the reason given for the rejection which is that the content of the article is already on WikiSource. Here are some additional thoughts:

  • It is not quite true that the document is already on WikiSource. Just like at NARA, WikiSource breaks up the the U.S. Constitution into its component parts.
  • While people knowledgeable in the Constitution understand that the FULL Constitution includes the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the additional Amendments (11-27) - MANY LAY PERSONS AND FIRST TIME READERS WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. They will just click on the U.S. Constitution link and think they have it. Many people, including non-U.S. citizens in the U.S. and around the world, might misunderstand that the text of the "U.S. Constitution" is not complete and they have to read it along with the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.
  • This pattern of separating out the parts of the Constitution is repeated at many sites but if you buy a printed copy of the "U.S. Constitution" it will contain all parts in one coherent document.
  • About 55% of Wikipedia articles are read on a person's phone. Imagine how difficult it is to read and study the complete Constitution or find a reference when you have to search between three documents!?
  • Students and others may want to print and study the Constitution. A single article with all of the component parts of the Constitution without any editorial notes, commentary, etc., is needed so it can be printed off as a single document for study.
  • Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia. Imagine if a print encyclopedia put the Constitution in the "C" volume, the Bill of Rights in the "B" volume, and the Amendments in the "A" volume? Even given cross referencing, how many students given the assignment of reading the Constitution in the encyclopedia would fail to figure out they needed to pull all three volumes and read all three articles? More importantly, how many students or other readers today are missing one or more of the components when they search online for the Constitution today?

Okay, I think that's all I have.

Thanks, Scifietronica (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scifietronica. You are welcome to set up your own website and place the Constitution on it in any form you wish, but you may not do that on Wikipedia. Attempting to do so is fundamentally against the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is not a repository of primary source documents. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:02:02, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tony Mosley

edit


Hello, I'm chasing down a page that has been previously unsuccessfully submitted to draft review, and now the page that was previously a draft version has been removed and a redirect to an unrelated page is in it's place.

I'm still interested in editing the article for resubmission but now I'm facing the prospect of having to rewrite the article contents from scratch... which I would prefer not to have to do.

The page was here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tony_Mosley/sandbox&action=history

then ...

(cur | prev) 06:57, 18 September 2018‎ Robert McClenon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50 bytes) +50‎ . . (Robert McClenon moved page User:Tony Mosley/sandbox to Draft:Nick Mitchell: Preferred location for AfC submissions) (thank) Tag: New redirect

and now doesn't appear to exist at all.

Is there a way of pulling the article back into my sandbox area at all?

Tony Mosley (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mosley Greetings. Here is your draft article [1]. You could copy the text and recreate the page under different subject name such as "Nick Mitchell (fitness)" as there is an existing Nick Mitchell article in English Wikipedia. Pls pay attention to the comments made by the reviewers. At the present stage the page is not notable and appears you have a close connection to the subject which means you have an conflict of interest here (COI). Wikipedia is highly discourage editor who has COI edit/create an effected page and disclose of COI need to be made - see WP:DISCLOSE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_March_20&oldid=889504269"