Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 7

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 6 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 8 >
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 7

edit

01:19:41, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Mbdfar

edit

I am requesting a non-biased re-review of Draft:Lana_Rhoades on the basis of new sources not discussed in the 4 previous AfDs, the last of which was in 2020. Over half of the cited references did not exist at the time of the last discussion. The same closing editor in the last few submissions has not commented on or reviewed any new sources, instead deferring to the old AfDs.

I'll start with the industry specific sources. Keep in mind, these are NSFW. Here's the Playboy article published in 2021. Playboy is listed on WP:RS. This is a multi-page biographical source about the subject's life and career and clearly a reliable, secondary source with very significant coverage.

There are three AVN sources in the article, and more at the AVN website. These have been discussed in previous AfDs and dismissed as non-RS. However, AVN as a source was reviewed and listed at WP:RS in 2021 (after the AfDs). The three sources are AVN articles, not press releases as previously argued, which is explicitly considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I sourced the articles that did not mention the subject's business to avoid promotion.

There are two articles from Grazia UK. I can't find any discussion about the source, but it seems to be an established publication. The author of both cited articles is an editor of the magazine. This article I believe to be especially in depth. Is it uninteresting celebrity news? Sure. But I don't think it can be dismissed as a mere tabloid. It can be inane and still a reliable source that shows notability.

The Daily Beast article has had mixed opinions in previous AfDs about how significant the subject is within the article, but I think it's much more than just a namedrop. I'd welcome further review.

GQ has been considered a reliable source in a previous discussion, and this article has never been discussed in a previous AfD. This is a simple article about a milestone in the subject's career. The g1 article has also not been discussed. Both of these are significant coverage and not promotional.

Then there are those sources concerning the subject's foray into crypto. None of these sources were published at the time of the previous AfDs. This includes the capital.com article and the bitcoin.com article. I'm not sure how to assess the reliability of these sources, but they are both written by employees of the websites. Both are significant coverage and are not promotional in nature.

There are likely more WP:RS than what I've listed if this does not prove to be enough. For one, XBIZ is listed at WP:RS as being considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I have not cited any XBIZ articles, but there are 130 hits when searching for the subject. There are also 53,900 hits on Google News for the subject. Yes, these are 99% tabloid fluff non-RS junk articles, but there are certainly some RS hidden in the haystack.

All in all, I just want a fair review of the article. I think the subject is notable and worth inclusion. I have no connection to the subject - I've just been surprised how much backlash there has been during this drafting process and would like to see it through. Mbdfar (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mbdfar, I am sympathetic to your concern here but I don't think AfC can solve this situation. Given the consensus from the AfDs and the admin lock on the page, I believe the best process would be appealing to the Admin to remove the protection and allowing you to be WP:BOLD and place in mainspace. If the admin unwilling, can appeal to WP:DRV, I think. In short, going to need community consensus the page should exist. Slywriter (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions Slywriter. I'm reticent about being BOLD with such a contentious article, so I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_October_8#Lana_Rhoades. Mbdfar (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:15:24, 7 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by NeeRao

edit


I recently wrote a biography of a person who is renowned in the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and is credited with many services to the Police force. He has held important roles for the Government of India. Please explain to me how I can make changes to the article so it can be published.

NeeRao (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:36:26, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Balaam Barugahara

edit


Am still new, kindly help me correct the neccesary areas on this for it to be approved within the shortest time possible. I thank you all

Balaam Barugahara (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balaam Barugahara Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability; specifically, the definition of a notable person. We are interested in what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves or in the mere reporting of their accomplishments. Please see the Five Pillars to learn more about Wikipedia. You should use a social media outlet to post your resume or accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balaam Barugahara: it will not be approved, because it was speedily deleted. Please read the message posted on your user talk page explaining why autobiographies are a Really Bad Idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balaam Barugahara I think you need LinkedIn, not Wikipedia. If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:BIO does that.
🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:39:35, 7 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SimonToney9

edit 


Hello I am new to wikipedia. Can you please tell me what to do to get this article approved approved.


SimonToney9 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonToney9: the draft was speedily deleted as promotional, and will therefore not be approved. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read the message posted on your user talk page advising against autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal blog about myself. How can I make a Bio about myself that will end up on google search? SimonToney9 (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9 Wikipedia is not a blogging site, it is an encyclopaedia. If you want to blog, try one of the many blogging platforms. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 There is nothing you can do, it was deleted as blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability; specifically, the definition of a notable person. We are interested in what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves or in the mere reporting of their accomplishments. Please see the Five Pillars to learn more about Wikipedia. You should use a social media outlet to tell the world about yourself. Please also see the autobiography policy to learn why autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont not fully understand. How can I get my own google knoglepannel? SimonToney9 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can i have my own like this Gergvrf3543gerv.png SimonToney9 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 We aren't interested in helping you get a Knowledge Panel, which is just a collation of search result information- for which a Wikipedia article is only one possible input. As I said, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That is what social media is for. Also please read about how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. Have you read the autobiography policy yet? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how the hell do other people have personal descriptions then? SimonToney9 (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to appear on google I can. SimonToney9 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, an independent editor wholly unconnected with you will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources like the news and choose on their own to write about you. You can't try to force this issue. You will have to figure out some other way to promote yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this shit so confusing SimonToney9 (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I can't have my own knoglepannel? SimonToney9 (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 Google and Wikipedia are separate websites. We have nothing to do with what Google requires for its knowlege panels, though I am aware a Wikipedia article is only one possible input. What I can tell you is that you seem to not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article, and even if you did, ideally you shouldn't be the one to write it. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if there any other ways to get a google pannel? SimonToney9 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to contact Google or search Google's pages to see what they require. We have nothing to do with what they require. Even if they do require a Wikipedia article, you do not meet the criteria to merit one. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the words numnuts SimonToney9 (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9 there is no need to get offensive, and I would advise you to adopt a more civil tone, thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about how personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9: that's really nothing to do with us; as already mentioned, Google and Wikipedia are entirely different things. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
learn how to speak, "There is nothing you can do" SimonToney9 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9 That sentence was perfectly valid and understandable. David10244 (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:48, 7 October 2022 review of draft by Flatairbag

edit


Hello, After 3 submission attempts I would like to understand examples of exactly what you require to get this page published. I am intending to write an article on a well-respected (who lived a fairly private life) New Zealand artist who last year passed away. He spent his career full-time as an artist, had hundreds of public exhibitions since the 1960s, producing hundreds of oil paintings (some which sold for over USD$30,000, was granted to go to Antartica with the New Zealand Antartic Research Programme, achieved a New Zealand Order of Merit medal, and helped many charity organisations such as the World Wide fund for Nature, NZ Forest & Bird Society, QE2 National Trust etc. I have included references from the Auckland Museum, Antartica NZ website, Queens Birthday Honors List, New Zealand Herald (newspaper), other newspapers etc. Although top of his game in New Zealand in the 80/90s, the man lived a fairly private existance and hence there is not alot of information online about him. I look at some articles of other New Zealand Artists and some of them have achieved far less, but yet have wikipedia pages about them - So does someone who achieved an MNZM for servives to the Arts and Community not count for a wikipedia article? Please can you help provide the necessary information I need to be able to publish this, for what I consider to be one of New Zealands most recognised yet private artists.. (and according to articles such as the following I am not the only one with this opinion) https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-southland-times/20210726/281522229116641 ("We've lost two of the masters this year" - Wayne Marriott Art Gallery Owner) Thank you.

Flatairbag (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flatairbag Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This is a subtle but important distinction. Please read other stuff exists; these other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate and have simply not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate content can get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you wish, you can help us by identifying other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, as those have been vetted by the community.
Sources do not need to be online, they need only be publicly available (i.e. books in a library). You do need to show that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatairbag: the first thing you must establish is that this person is notable. You can do that either via WP:GNG, by showing significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Or if that's not possible for any reason, then you may assert special notability by one or more of the four criteria in WP:ARTIST, as long as you support this with reliable evidence. Note that things like being 'famous' or prolific etc. has nothing to do with notability as defined in the Wikipedia context (although it may lead to it).
The next thing you must do is make sure to reference all material information, anything potentially contentious, and (for living and recently-deceased people, which per WP:BDP possibly includes this person) any private personal and family details.
What this means, effectively, is that you shouldn't be writing an article based on what you know about the subject, but rather summarise (in your own words) what independent and reliable published sources have said about it. You also shouldn't add your own interpretation or commentary, or put a positive or negative spin on things.
There is more to it, of course, but this will get you pretty close to an acceptable article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:48, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Vvs3693

edit


Hello,

I tried to publish an article on Indian music composer and the draft was declined. The comment said the person not meeting the notability criteria and unreliable sources. I had provided the IMDB, discography link from a media website and the IMDB link for his debut work. He is an artist since 2014 and has done some notable work in the recent years. I am not sure why this doesn't meet criteria and what reference other than media link I should cite. His name is already on the pages of his film (that's how I figured out there was no article for him). Not sure how to proceed from here.

vvs3693 10:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvs3693 (talk • contribs)

@Vvs3693: the draft cites IMDb and Filmibeat.com, neither of which is considered reliable. The ToI is slightly better, but far from great — see WP:TOI. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vvs3693 IMDB is user-generated content; anyone can write whatever they want on that site, whether it's true or not. That's why, as DoubleGrazing said, IMDB cannot be used to show that the artist is notable (notability can only be demonstrated by reliable sources). We need citations to things that have been written about him or her by others ... and not interviews. Same with Filmbeat. David10244 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

≈

11:46:20, 7 October 2022 review of submission by JANAKKAFLE121

edit


please help us by editing our page . we are legally registered media in nepal and running since 2021 . we want to provide all our information to our visitors by making our wikipedia page . We hope you will help us .



JANAKKAFLE121 (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JANAKKAFLE121: before anything else happens, you must disclose your relationship to this media company, with which you clearly have a conflict of interest. This matter was queried on your user talk page User talk:JANAKKAFLE121 already back in April, and I don't see that you have done anything about it. Please note that this is a hard requirement, so please action it now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for that I have not more experience in wikipedia editing so i got a problem . For your information i am the owner of this media company and i want to create page so other people can get right information about us . JANAKKAFLE121 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the wrong reason to create an article(we don't have pages, we have articles), and is not permitted on Wikipedia. You should use your own website or social media to do that. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, only in what others say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:52, 7 October 2022 review of draft by Encyloedit

edit

Hi, this draft is redundant now, how do I withdraw it from the submissions list as a main space article covers the same content now.

Encyloedit (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyloedit: I've declined the draft, which removes it from the pending drafts pool. After six months or so (assuming nobody edits it in the meantime) it'll get deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may also mark it for speedy deletion as an author request by placing {{db-author}} at the top. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @DoubleGrazing Thanks Encyloedit (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:10, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Wikidibo

edit

I've written a page on a UK company which keeps being flagged as reading like an advert. The feedback states that it must be written from a "neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

I'm not sure how best to make an edit to it to improve it, as it's written neutrally, based on factual statements which all have independent sources which are referenced correctly. The sources are mostly UK and global news outlets that have reported on the company (BBC, Forbes, TechCrunch), or the websites of large multi-national companies that have worked with the company (Ford, Mercedes), as well as some other industry related commentary from insurance press.

I was wondering if there were any specific sources here which were causing the issue and if removed would enable it to be acceptable, or are there specific sentences, phrases, facts or information which are causing issues please?

Wikidibo (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters you begin the draft with a spam link to your website! Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:38, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Sifiso Cele

edit


Sifiso Cele (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Draft:Amandawe Mission What is wrong with this draft and how can I improve it?[reply]

As the tags say, entire sections are unsourced. You need to source all the content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:01, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Relgin10

edit


}}

The reviewer said: "This does not present as a usable Wikipedia item. Please review the guide to article creation and the manual of style particularly MOS:HEAD." I have done this and am unable to determine what specifically needs to be changed in the article, both in the guide to article creation and in the manual of style. Is it possible to get more specific guidance about what needs correcting or changing?


Relgin10 (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Relgin10, what we need first is to see three instances of significant coverage in wp:reliable, independent sources. That's how we prove an article subject is notable enough for inclusion.
Your best bet is to completely pare the article back to what is included in those three sources. Other information can be added later from other reliable nonaffiliated sources, but to prove the subject should have an article in the first place, we first need the above. Valereee (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_October_7&oldid=1115746714"