Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 16

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 15 << May | June | Jul >> June 17 >
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.


June 16

edit

01:53, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Sindrella409

edit

I submitted an article for consideration and it was immediately declined. I don't understand why. The reviewer said the inline citations were insufficient. Jimmy Doom is a Detroit celebrity with over 70 IMDB credits. The sources I cited were our major metropolitan papers and magazines. Can someone please offer additional guidance as to what I'm missing? Sindrella409 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sindrella409: in articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported with inline citations (to reliable published sources), whereas in your draft there are several paragraphs without any referencing, and the DOB is also unsupported.
Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This excludes things said or written by the subject themselves (incl. interviews), as well as any user-generated sources such as IMDb, Discogs, or Goodreads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I appreciate the guidance and will use different sources. I appreciate the input. <3 Sindrella409 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:41, 16 June 2023 review of submission by JimmyT1967

edit

I reached the point a few months ago where I felt I was fulfilling all the requirements cited as the reason this article was rejected. The only result was that people started offering to get the article accepted if I paid them to edit it for me. So I let it lie. Here are the facts - the subject of the article has had about 30 books published by mainstream publishers. She has had numerous reviews of her books and articles about them published in mainstream newspapers. She has been interviewed on radio about her books many, many times and has been a speaker at several writers' conferences. And yet, she is not considered a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article by your editors. I would like to know precisely what's missing from my submission rather than vague references to requirements that I haven't met, so that I can fix it without having to pay a self-styled "Wiki expert" for the privilege. JimmyT1967 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyT1967: the first thing to say is, anyone asking for money to help your draft get accepted is likely to be scamming, therefore my advice is to steer well clear of such offers. Needless to say, they have nothing to do with us.
This draft was previously declined (not rejected) on two grounds: lack of notability, and inadequate referencing.
Notability doesn't arise from having written many books or articles, or having spoken at many events. It arises, in the case of authors, in one of two ways:
  1. They meet one or more of the four criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR. --or--
  2. They have been covered in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. By 'covered', I mean significant coverage, not just passing mentions. Note that interviews, which you mention, do not count, as they are the subject talking about themselves. Note also that while book reviews might make the books in question notable, they do not necessarily do that for the author, unless they also provide significant coverage directly of them.
As for referencing, per WP:BLP, in articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. In your draft, the entire 'Life' section is unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable.
These things are, precisely, what is missing from your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous submission, the "life" section was laced with references to places she was born, educated, and worked and that was deemed either insufficient or irrelevant so I took it out. I guess she just isn't famous enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, although I note that books by some of her peers are (although the authors are not), so perhaps I will pursue that avenue. Having said that, it seems to be slightly illogical to feature an author's work without carrying a reference or link to the author. 2001:8003:2830:8A01:55DC:955A:9BCA:984A (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Laced with references" yes, in the sense that there were several citations in that section. However, they mostly pointed to the home pages (domain roots) of websites, which is useless in terms of supporting article contents: you must point precisely to the URL that actually corroborates a statement in the article. There were also two apparent citations to other Wikipedia articles, but it is pointless 'citing' Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia as this creates a circular reference (if you wish to link to an existing article, you do that through wikilinks). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Katrina masbin

edit

Hi . I want to know that which part of my article had problems? It was about my sources that my article submission was declined? Thank? Katrina masbin (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Katrina masbin: the sources do not show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Tamtrible

edit

I have put a lot of work into this article. It is somewhat similar to, but not the same as, the page of culinary herbs and spices. It has been in limbo because of that similarity, because it was removed when it was in a much earlier stage and I can't move it out of draft space because of this, but people keep telling me to "improve the existing page", but basically the only way I could do that would be by replacing the entire page with my page, and the people who have already edited that page in the past don't want that.

I just want it to be a thing, in some fashion.

Plz help? Tamtrible (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamtrible: I think we've discussed this quite enough already, don't you? And this draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for it. I appreciate you've put effort into it, and seeing it stall is frustrating, but that's how it is, I'm afraid. We don't publish articles based on how much effort has gone into them, or how much the creator may wish to publish them, but how suitable they are for inclusion. (And no, you should emphatically not replace the existing article with yours, unless and until you get clear and strong consensus on the said article's talk page first.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the discussions always just go off into limbo. Waiting for input from people who don't give any input, and so forth. This is arguably a better page than the one it is "too similar to" (it's a sortable table instead of just a list), and also arguably a *different* page (focusing more on the plants than on the actual herbs).
It's not just that I've put a lot of work into this (though that is, indeed, frustrating), it's that I think this is *a better page*, with more information presented in a more useful format.
If you look at the prior discussions, you'll see a lot of things like "Yeah, I think this is a good page, but what does <person> think?", with no response from said person. Tamtrible (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Valereee will look at this when she has an opportunity as she is one of our best editors regarding food and drink. Smirkybec is another editor interested in food and drink who may be able to do something with this. In the meantime, I have boldly replaced the article with the content from the draft, as I can see some support for this on the talk page, plus the opposition appears weak and vague. If somebody reverts this, we'll discuss what to do then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Maxclayman

edit

I have added new references and have changed the tone, is this enough for this page to be accepted? Maxclayman (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxclayman You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending, the reviewer will make a determination, and leave you a message either way. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! Maxclayman (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maxclayman, some of your sources do not seem to show that Nate has Significant Coverage. A brief mention is not usually enough to establish notability. Your sources should provide in-depth information about Nate, going beyond basic facts or promotional material. From a brief glance it looks like only the first and third source is directly covering Nate- the rest only mention him in passing and are therefore probably not going to count.
Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (people). It might simply be Wikipedia:Too soon for Nate to have an article, despite his laudable activism. Qcne (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Qcne ! Maxclayman (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 16 June 2023 review of submission by RajeshTrip

edit

Why my article is declined RajeshTrip (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not just declined, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reason for the rejection is at the top of the draft. You offer some Wikipedia articles as sources(I think you meant to simply link them, which is done by placing the target article in double brackets like this: [[India]]). Social media accounts are not reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here, some knowledge will help you. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 16 June 2023 review of submission by 2.50.24.49

edit

dear sir, This is official username we are not spam or duplicate, This is official organization, we are just helping the people of determination. so please reinstate it. Thanks 2.50.24.49 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is absolutely spam. you draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so please give me advice what I do now? 2.50.24.49 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do something else. don't try to have an article on this company. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that once you've been blocked (I'm assuming you were editing under User:Gilaniengineering), you should not continue to edit under an IP address, as this could be regarded as block evasion. You must instead appeal your block, as instructed on your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:57, 16 June 2023 review of draft by 119.73.121.76

edit


Hello, I want help from experienced editors regarding my article on Raimond Magomedaliev. I want to be published. I want two things. 1) I want real help from an experienced editor to make it as perfect as possible. 2) I need review and feedback from that editor 119.73.121.76 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, you cannot ask for an editor to work on your draft for you. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you could take a look at my draft and review it than...I hope that's not too much to ask. 119.73.121.76 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I also updated my draft from the last review. When it was first reviewed my draft was not complete. But it is complete now. 119.73.121.76 (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 16 June 2023 review of submission by OlifanofmrTennant

edit

So my initial submission was declined saying the article lacked notability. I understand this and was wondering that if the overall article is okay as is such as the formating (headers, subhead). OLI 11:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides notability, the article contains too much trivia. For instance, the appearance section. Carpimaps talk to me! 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:02, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Drumstick21

edit

I created an AfC request for Draft:Icelandic_identity_card without realising that the article already exists in the namespace, but with a redirect. Should I edit (paste the draft into) the existing article and remove the redirect or should I wait for the AfC request? If so, how do I cancel the AfC request. Drumstick21 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait. If your draft is accepted, the reviewer will handle moving it to the encyclopedia over the redirect. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Altaf05

edit

please sir hlep me Altaf05 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 16 June 2023 review of submission by 78.63.218.169

edit

plz 78.63.218.169 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this draft is rejected. it will never be considered again. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:59:30, 16 June 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by BedStuyResident

edit


I recently had an article rejected. I've since made edits based on the feedback and now the article is completed in draft mode. How do I go about resubmitting it? Should I rebuild it in sandbox and go from there?

BedStuyResident (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BedStuyResident I am assuming you are asking about Draft:The Sun Rises in The East (2022 film). I added the draft template so you can submit it for review. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Benmil

edit

Good morning, I need more information about the refuse of this draft. Thank you Best Regards Benmil Benmil (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@benmil: the refuse here is that your draft as written is essentially an advertisement for the company. this is against the purpose of wikipedia. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:07, 16 June 2023 review of draft by Oasis2019

edit


Hi, I'd like to know which are the references that you said were not reliable. Also, should I add general references such as the link to Cambridge University website if I cite it on the article? Thanks

Oasis2019 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oasis2019: it doesn't look as if this has gone through an AfC review, it was just moved from the main space to drafts, so you should really ask the user who moved it. But since you're here, I've had a quick glance, and although it looks like the content is referenced, much of it isn't really, as many of the citations only point to the website home pages. You need to cite a specific URL which supports a statement made in the article. So if you want to show that this person went to Rhodes University, you need to find a page on their (or some other reliable) website which says so, and cite that, not just point to the RU home page.
I don't know what exactly you mean by 'general references', but in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP) clear inline citations to reliable published sources are required, general references (where you simply list sources without linking them through specific citations) are not enough. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, DoubleGrazing. Very helpful. Do I need to cite a specific URL which supports a statement made like the example you used of Rhodes University? It will be difficult to find on the University website any references about this specific individual. Oasis2019 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oasis2019: actually, it works the other way around. You shouldn't be writing something, and then trying to find a source to back it up. You should be summarising what reliable published sources say, and citing those sources as you go. Therefore the issue of "difficult to find" sources to support what you've written should never arise.
Incidentally, where did you get that particular piece of information? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I get it. Very helpful again. Oasis2019 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 16 June 2023 review of submission by David Gleason

edit

A reviewer stated "Sources are either not independent or not reliable" but this is not correct, some sources are indeed both independent and reliable. How can this incorrect decision be reversed? Thank you David Gleason (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't incorrect. All the references to the StarLink website would not establish notability as they are primary sources. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources as they usually lack fact checking and editorial control. Even setting that aside, most of the blog entries seem to be how-to guides, not significant coverage of the topic as to its importance/significance/influence. Please read Your First Article. You should first appeal to the last reviewer directly, you may then use this discussion to convince the community that the decision was incorrect, preferably with arguments based in Wikipedia policies.
I see this is the only topic that you have edited about recently, after a long absence from editing. If you are connected to this topic, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the citations from the AllStarLink website are not independent. (Also please note this article is not about StarLink as you mention. That is a very different system). However, there are a number of other citations that are from independent and reliable sources. Starting at the top of the list for example, the 4th citation is an article in CQ Amateur Radio magazine. This magazine has been in publication since 1945, and has no affiliation with AllStarLink. How is CQ magazine not a reliable and independent source? Thank you David Gleason (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be okay as a source, but the specific piece just tells of the existence of this topic and what it does. I don't see what it says is important/significant/influential about it. And even if valid, that's only one source.
I again ask if you have a connection to this topic. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been a licensed amateur radio operator since 1986. I have no connection to AllStarLink organization other than as a user of the technology and system. It makes no difference to me financially if there is a wikipedia article on ASL or not. ASL is an entirely free network, that is free to users.
Going back to the fundamentals, ASL certainly is notable, in the sense that it has about 50,000 users and is used by 1,000's of people every day to talk to each other and to link together 1,000's of amateur radio systems throughout the world. It is not the first or oldest system to do such a thing, but does so in a more powerful and flexible way than the several other older, more simplistic, and less used systems. These older less flexible systems eg. IRLP and EchoLink, are also notable, and do have wikipedia articles, even though I do not believe they have any significantly larger number of independent reliable sources cited.
As a web developer who maintains wikimedia wiki's on several private web systems (not related to amateur radio) I greatly appreciate the utility that wikipedia provides, as a central resource where the many 10,000's of people who use AllStar and many other amateur radio operators who might want to know more about it can quickly and easily get a clear overview of what it is from one concise wikipedia article, and where people can easily contribute to and expand the content over time. The AllStarLink.org website, wiki, and forums comprise 1,000's of pages of information written by 1,000's of people over 15 years which is a lot of information for potential new users to sort through. It is perfectly logical that such a widely used and notable system should have a short simple wikipedia page explaining what it is in simple terms and within the context of other similar technologies, which as I mentioned do have wikipedia articles even though they are at most equally notable.
To claim that none of the citations are reliable and independent is just not true. Sure they aren't all the NY Times, but this is a niche hobby, and every one of the citations has valid useful information and are written by sincere people who are supporting a free technology with no financial incentives to do so. There are 1,000's of other such hobbies and interests with wikipedia articles, that serve the larger community by providing a well structured central repository of information in a way that makes it easy to find out more about that hobby or interest and to easily add and contribute to it. I would urge you or any other review to please review the citations more carefully and I believe you will see that AllStarLink is indeed notable, and that this is a free, open and widely used system that is not out to make money. It exists solely for the furtherance of the hobby of amateur radio and it would be an injustice if wikipedia refuses to allow an article to be published. Thank you David Gleason (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that anything that exists can have a Wikipedia article and that it's enough to merely document the existence of something and what it does. That's not true. Please review the notability criteria if you haven't already. I get that you personally think that this technology is significant as a user of it, but you can't use Wikipedia to promote it. You don't have to have a financial interest in something to promote it, nor does it need to be profit driven for its creators. Personally I don't think 50,000 people is "widely used" but if independent sources discuss that as significant, let's see them.
Please also see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and are simply unaddressed. You are correct that the EchoLink and IRLP articles have similar issues. IRLP is already marked as problematic, and I will also mark EchoLink as such, thank you. We're only as good as our volunteer editors who we rely on to identify issues with an article or articles. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, as they have been vetted by the community.
I suggest that perhaps the AllStarLink website have a more concise version of its content on its website. I by no means am the last and only word here, feel free to see what others say. If there is a community consensus to reverse the rejection, then you would be allowed to resubmit it. In the interim I definitely suggest that you remove all content sourced to a primary source. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you for the feedback. My intent originally was for this article (or perhaps page is a better term) to be a sub-article/page of Amateur radio. Maybe I somehow created it incorrectly. Can you please let me know how to make it a sub-page on the Amateur radio page? There is already a red link on that page for AllStarLink. Thank you David Gleason (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you discuss any proposed addition to the amateur radio article at Talk:Amateur radio. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_June_16&oldid=1161333405"