Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 21 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 23 >
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.


March 22

edit

03:05:12, 22 March 2023 review of submission by Nroosovsky

edit


How are the things he's been apart of relevant and have pages, but he is not relevant when he was an integral part of their success? Nroosovsky (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nroosovsky: "relevance", or lack thereof, isn't why this draft was rejected; notability is. Several reviewers have spent time and effort reviewing the draft, and providing feedback on it – have you read any of it? In any case, now that this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nroosovsky Notability isn't inherited, and it doesn't transfer "sideways". A notable person can write a non-notable book, and a notable book can be written by a non-notable person. What references do you have where others have written about him, in-depth? David10244 (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:42, 22 March 2023 review of draft by AhuraPardazeshIran

edit


AhuraPardazeshIran (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AhuraPardazeshIran: what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:28, 22 March 2023 review of draft by BrightUK

edit


Hi, Our Cumnor House School wikipedia pages keep being declined. As both schools are small they have limited secondary sources to use. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on getting an article accepted if they have very limited secondary sources, and how the school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendower_Preparatory_School got accepted with only 1 reference? We have added additional sources to Cumnor House School for Girls and sent this for re-review however these are the only sources they have. BrightUK (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrightUK: by definition, Wikipedia only summarises what reliable sources have previously published about a subject. Moreover, in order to justify an article, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources. From this it follows that if there are no, or not enough, such sources to cite, then it is not possible to create a Wikipedia article. (As for the Glendower article, that was created 15+ years ago when the rules on notability etc. may have been different; it has now been flagged as possibly non-notable. In any case, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article about the board game Freedom

edit

I have already read the requirements for new Wikipedia before submitting the article, so the generic information didn't help me to understand the concrete reason for the rejection of the stub/draft. In particular, there are uncountably many similar articles, which are deservedly on Wikipedia that are incredibly similar to the proposed draft, see Kruzno_(board_game) as an example. And all of these articles are very valuable to have in Wikipedia, and exactly what I would expect to be in an encyclopedia. I want to add the article about the board game Freedom, because of my work on the page Games played with Go equipment, where I want to add this game. However, it does not yet exist on Wikipedia. It would also be an interesting addition to the List of abstract strategy games and enrich Wikipedia as an encyclopedia as a whole. The cited source is definitely independent and secondary, and I made sure to reformulate everything, so that there is no copy/paste. It is also reliable, because it matches with other checked sources. So please reconsider or advise what exactly needs to happen to get the draft accepted. Arminius4 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised on my talk page, your single source is not reliable as it appears to be user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminius4: this draft was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean you're not allowed to resubmit it) because it fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Notability is shown by citing multiple independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. The one source cited in this draft meets none of those criteria, and even if it did, it alone wouldn't be enough.
Moreover, that one source is cited only once, near the start of the draft, begging the obvious question –where is the rest of the information coming from? You need to support every material statement with a citation to a reliable source – or put it another way: your article should only be summarising what reliable published sources have said, citing each source against the information they provide.
And finally, there may well be other articles out there which don't meet our notability etc. standards, but that is no reason to create more of them. All new articles must comply with the guidelines and policies as they stand today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminius4: I'm afraid the draft has been tagged as a copyright violation of the source you cited. It is a very close paraphrase of the source text – please follow that link to see why that is not acceptable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is paraphrased; For one, it is difficult to phrase some things very differently in this instance of a very short and concise text (try to say "the car is blue" in different words..). Additionally, some words had to be the same, as these are the officially used terms (e.g. "live" stones). I read the close paraphrase article (that I admit I hadn't seen before).
I can definitely add more citation marks within the text to make it clear that the information is taken from that reference. I can also add [1]as another source - please note, how the cited secondary source (igg) is also just a paraphrase of its primary source.
I do not think, that it should be a problem in this instance, as there are no creative expressions; all statements are facts ("the car is blue", not "the car glowed a soft blue, reminiscent of the azure of the sea."). There is no single sentence copied; only the structure of the article is similar (this is confirmed by the automatic analysis in the report).
A few rephrasings could also just remedy the problem. I do not believe that there is a moral or a legal issue. Especially now that I have found out that there was an apparently very similar Wikipedia article before and that the rules spread in very similar language across multiple sites.
The fact, that a third party web site took the effort to provide rules and implement the game on a game server is a clear indication of notability for me. Arminius4 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not the use of specific terminology ("live" etc). That is, as you point out, not something that can be changed. It is also sometimes the case that there is only one possible way of phrasing a very short statement of fact, but that is irrelevant here; I can't see the deleted text, but the entire draft was in fact a copy of the source with some noun phrases and verbs replaced by near-synonyms, and a few other very minor changes. I'm afraid that is not acceptable. Plagiarism isn't something that can only happen in a particular register, and has nothing to do with whether the text states a fact or expresses an opinion, nor with how many adjectives there are. Ditto for copyright violations.
If you decide to create another draft about the game, do not try to rewrite a source text. It's very difficult to free oneself from the phrasing of the original text – instead, read the sources carefully, noting down key facts, and then write a draft based on your own keywords, afterwards checking the sources again to see that they are correctly represented. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:13, 22 March 2023 review of submission by Manny Manatee

edit

I am requesting a review, because this person is notable, and everyone keeps saying he is not. He has more than 2 million subscribers on YouTube, and is the most popular Madden/FIFA/2k YouTuber. Manny Manatee (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manny Manatee: he could have 200 million subscribers, and that still wouldn't make him notable, because notability in Wikipedia terms is not measured in follower numbers or other such metrics. What we need to see is significant coverage of him in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, and you've failed to provide those despite several opportunities; this is why the draft was rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manny Manatee What have others written about him, in-depth, not including interviews? That is what you need. David10244 (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_March_22&oldid=1146975230"