Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 16

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< April 15 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 16

edit

04:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 180.150.113.7

edit

Hi, I've just seen my draft has been declined. It is in fact the truth. Please see Timothy John Windsor (York) on Facebook and contact the royal family for further proof if necessary.

Thankyou 180.150.113.7 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:49, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Lucygirl03

edit

I have checked his entire profile. He was selected as an IPS officer in the 2013 batch. He has served as an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) in Ramanathapuram district and acted as a Superintendent of Police (SP) in Ambatur city. He is currently serving as an Undersecretary in Delhi. He has successfully resolved numerous sensitive issues in Ramanathapuram district. Therefore, I believe he is eligible to have a Wikipedia page. Here is the reference

IPS Profile reference: https://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/go/home_e_17_2015_pn.pdf https://elcot.in/sites/default/file/List%20of%20eligible%20Officers%20under%20AIS%20Scheme_0.pdf https://ips.gov.in/Empanelment/Inter_seSeniority_20012023.pdf

Ambattur case: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/140218/chennai-rowdy-binu-pleads-for-mercy.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/how-chennai-police-captured-6-dozen-wanted-men-in-1-raid/articleshow/62829064.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/letter-solves-15-murder-for-cops/articleshow/63162837.cms

Ramanathapuram District caste issues: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/promote-communal-harmony/article8634708.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/Sub-Collector-ASP-honoured-for-commendable-services/article17098729.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/shifting-focus-treading-the-path-of-peace-and-growth/article18511170.ece https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=174723380&highlights=RAJ%20MUDHALVAN https://colombogazette.com/2016/08/22/brown-sugar-to-be-smuggled-to-sri-lanka-seized-in-tamil-nadu/ https://www.dtnext.in/city/2017/07/03/city-police-officers-shifted-out-within-a-month-in-reshuffle 

Lucygirl03 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons this has been rejected. First, it's one tiny paragraph that doesn't explain how he meets notability. Second, it's written in a promotional manner. Please address these problems in your draft. Deb (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucygirl03: I would be incredibly cautious if you decide to continue with this. See WP:Contentious topics for more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Millat Ahmad

edit

I am a maiden user in wiki. My very first article is Aanthai. Please give your suggestions to help to edit my draft for suitable in wiki. Thanks Millat Ahmad (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user, you would be well advised to learn the ropes before trying to create a draft. Have you read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia? Deb (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jazakhallah123

edit

Hey, I'm writing an article about a very influential political dynasty family and am wondering why it has been rejected. Jazakhallah123 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazakhallah123: the draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comment – did you read any of that? Anyway, you've since edited the draft and resubmitted it, so you will sooner or later be getting further feedback from the next reviewer. In the meantime, if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 1.158.49.44

edit

Is it still possible to make articles about the UTTP? They’re significantly more relevant now. I’d like to make an article about them. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to make an article about various other UTTP subjects such as “thy greatest battle of the internet” and “UTTP emperor anime sucks”. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't do that. Qcne (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your sources are usable (unknown provenance). YouTube is unusable as a source in most circumstances; the only time we could use it is if (1) the video is produced by an outlet that we'd consider reliable and (2) said video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. For obvious reasons we wouldn't be able to cite anything the UTTP or its members put out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Funn With The Finn

edit

Sorry, pretty much a first-timer here. I would be happy to rewrite the article to be just about the book (as mentioned in the comments) and I made the edits already but I can't seem to be able to change the actual name of the article. Can it be changed from "Beatrice Salvioni" to "The Cursed Friend (a novel)"? or do I need to create a new article altogether? I added some more quotes/references. Funn With The Finn (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not particularly relevant; when accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title by whomever accepts it. You may leave a note on the draft talk page as to what the title should be. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Funn With The Finn: if it were me, I'd leave this draft as it is, even if it means abandoning it, and creating a new draft on the book. That's probably easier than reworking this, and it means that should sources come to light which make Salvioni notable, you might be able to get this accepted also, plus it could save some potential confusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! I made a new draft now just about the book and left a short subchapter on the author with added refrences (removed the HarperCollins too as the details were available elsewhere). Funn With The Finn (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Catchphurba

edit

it would be nice if you help me to publish this articles Catchphurba (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catchphurba the draft has been rejected now, and so will not be published at this time. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3

edit

I understood that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" but if there is nothing else, but this person I'm sure is notable How to proceed with this? 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced. Where did that information come from? Cite those sources.
And saying you're "sure" the subject is notable is one thing; providing evidence thereof is another. It's the latter we're after. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is written with much promotional language("entreprenurial journey"); this leads me to think that you may be associated with this person- are you? The draft should be written very matter-of-factly, in a dry manner that does not talk up the subject, but just summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in Wikipedia parlance, doesn't mean famous, or popular, or influential, or significant, or any of those things. It means that people have already taken note of the subject, in published material. It basically means "There is enough independent, reliably published material about the subject to base an encyclopaedia article on" - remembering also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:04, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Joel V Alex

edit

Hi can you help to reframe the sentences so that it complies the rules and regulations of WIKIPEDIA? Joel V Alex (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel V Alex: this draft was deleted as promotional. So no.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mohd Ibraheem 9718

edit

i am trying to write an article but it is being rejected every time Mohd Ibraheem 9718 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined(not rejected) twice, and then finally rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for publishing how to manuals. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Pilotnance

edit

Help me, I want to write an article 

Pilotnance (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilotnance: you'll need to be a bit more specific – what would you like help with? Or if you're after general article-creation guidance, then you should find pretty much everything you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks Pilotnance (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rockparker

edit

What mistake am I making in Kaushik Das's Wikipedia article, can you please assist and help to me Rockparker (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockparker: the draft is promotional, poorly referenced with no inline citations (which are required), and I don't think there is any real evidence of notability either. Please see the decline notices, including all the advice linked to from there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do can I able to do Kaushik Das article in future or not , please help me , what should I do now Rockparker (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockparker: You need to show he is notable per Wikipedia's definition. None of your sources do that - Two are Transfermarkt (which we don't accept as a source), one is statlines from one of the leagues he played in, one is a match summary, and the last is a match report that doesn't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There 2 more articles about him , but I thought that firstly I mistake a lot that's why I remove that linke if you agree then I will put again , and he is a Football player and many his friends have there Wikipedia article, why for kaushik das is complicated Rockparker (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of Article X to argue for Article Y. It's likely his friends have articles due to being made before WP:NATHLETE was ripped to shreds in 2022 and nobody's bothered to go in and clean house yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review my last submission for last time sir please , this is my first time sorry for that , but tried my best sir Rockparker (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't use vocal.media (unknown provenance). Vocal.media especially appears to be a very badly disguised press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockparker: okay, I've reviewed it one last time. Not one of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Dishakabra12

edit

Could you please advise on why is she not notable enough? There are so many other whale researchers, who have made even smaller contributions to whale research and they have been included on Wikipedia? Is there a criteria? Dishakabra12 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dishakabra12: the draft is entirely unreferenced, which means it fails on verifiability and notability, both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. You would need to produce reliable sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Delpolocovy

edit

Please help me to modify my article so that it is accepted before publishing it. 

Delpolocovy (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Delpolocovy. Have you read WP:NOTESSAY? Your draft is not an encyclopaedic article, but an essay, so needs a total re-write.
You could try improving the existing microplastics article instead? Qcne (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by GabrielBarkin

edit

I would like help looking at the draft I wrote for The Croner Company and making it acceptable for submission. I suspect I need to pare it down considerably (too much of the material is unsubstantiated by independent sources, I suppose), but perhaps there is someone who can help me make it acceptable? GabrielBarkin (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielBarkin: yes, paring it down is probably a good idea. However, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, therefore your main task is to provide sources that satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline.
You should also change the disclosure on your user page from the generic COI one to the more specific paid-editing one, see {{Paid}}. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rustymirror

edit

I've added justification for notability to the Talk page. Can you please advise if anything else is needed to resubmit this article for creation? Rustymirror (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since the last review, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. Note that notability shouldn't be indicated on the talk page- the draft should be written to summarize the sources that show notability. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Apart from appealing to the last reviewer (no reply from them yet) - is it possible to submit a new draft that is fundamentally different? Rustymirror (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustymirror: Google Scholar gives this person an h-index of 7. Without being in any way an expert in this domain, that doesn't sound to me like evidence of meeting NACADEMIC #1. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Could you please advise what h-index score would be likely to meet NACADEMIC#1? The criteria notes state that "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
If you look at Dimensions research data on this person's book, "Compared to other publications in the same field, this publication is extremely highly cited and has received approximately 12 times more citations than average." - please see talk page for sources Rustymirror (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 207.242.53.34

edit

Hello Team, 

  i want to contribute or publish an article about NeilMed Pharmaceuticals Inc which is the manufacturer of the nasal saline irrigation devices and is the world leader in it's category. I want to create an article/post similar to how other companies have i.e. Apple, Amazon, BD, one trust llc, etc. Please help me out and guide through the process.

Thanks Sapan 

207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is certainly not the way to go about it. Your draft is pure advertising, with zero evidence of notability, and is consequently awaiting speedy deletion.
Please read and understand:
If you think you can comply with all that, then you will find everything you need to get you started at WP:YFA.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC):I assume that you are writing about your company; if so, this must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose.[reply]
I am ready to disclose and yes, i am writing about my company. Please help me out how and where to disclose.
Thanks
sapan 207.242.53.34 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your text was a blatant advertisement and has been deleted. You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Companies like Apple and Amazon do not own and maintain articles here. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on about the activities of your business; if it truly meets the notability guidelines, someone will eventually write about it. Be advised that an article about your business is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request you to guide on how to publish an article on NeilMed as a company.
Thanks 207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My advice to you as an employee is to not do so, see my previous comment above. If you've been asked to do so by your superiors, please read WP:BOSS and have them read it too.
If you nevertheless wish to proceed, disregarding my advice, you will need to carefully review the definition of a notable company. If you truly feel that your company meets that definition(most companies do not), then gather at least three independent reliable sources that chose on their own to write about your company. These cannot be interviews, press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. Then you may use the Article Wizard to summarize those and only those sources in a draft. This will not be easy. You should also disclose your paid status on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the details and guidance.
By the way, would you like to be the one who can start this. This is a request and solicitation 207.242.53.34 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not writers for hire, and assuming we are is genuinely offensive to the vast majority of us volunteers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 51.77.137.219

edit

‎ 51.77.137.219 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
  • We can't use Reference 1 (unknown provenance). YouTube as a source is usable only if (1) the video is created by an outlet we consider to be reliable and (2) is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
  • We can't use Reference 2 (no editorial oversight). Forum board.
  • We can't use Reference 3 (no editorial oversight).
  • We can't use Reference 4 (too sparse). Content-free profile.
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jvaldry

edit

I'm confused about the notability requirements. One reviewer said the person meets the standard, and another disagreed. I thought I had provided enough documentation of her work and cleaned up the language to be more encyclopedic. Jvaldry (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jvaldry: no, per WP:NACADEMIC #6.c, deanship does not normally make one inherently notable. (Doesn't mean an exception couldn't be made, and also doesn't mean that this person couldn't be otherwise notable, of course.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:02, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mandiace

edit

my page got declined because the sources were not reliable but I am not sure what is wrong with the sources. Mandiace (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandiace: it's not necessarily that the sources are not reliable, but that the draft isn't sufficiently supported; most of the content is unreferenced, which is not acceptable in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 16 April 2024 review of submission by TruthIsLikeGravity

edit

The issue of the last paragraph being "inscrutable" is a fair point that I can address. Thank you.

It was, however, claimed that there were "no secondary sources at all", which is patently untrue. There are multiple secondary sources. It is hard to satisfy reviewers that make such mischaracterizations in declining drafts.

The suggestion of making this draft a subsection of another article is odd. Numerous sport teams have Wikipedia articles distinct from the Leagues that they play in. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be problematic.
Leaving aside the last paragraph, the article says nothing other than that the team exists and that its members might play for other teams. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the point about "other stuff exists" may seem valid on the surface, consistency should be considered critical. Without consistency, it's just the Wild West. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency for consistency's sake is not a policy here. If you are aware of other articles about women's rugby teams that exist that you believe are similar to yours, please point those out so action can be taken. The best articles to use as a model or example are those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Divide the number of articles (6.8 million) by the number of administrators we have (686) and you'll realise you're asking us to do the impossible. We try to be consistent as much as possible, but when you've got such a deficit of manpower there's only so much you can do. Thus we have to rely on more proactive means like this to try and cut the firehose of new articles that would otherwise overwhelm us. To that end, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of the sources you provide that I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, have a look at the following examples and tell us what you think. I'm not going after articles out of spite, and these are only examples at the same institution, but I don't see any reliable secondary references in those articles by the standards you described:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Vikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Vikes_women%27s_basketball
If we start applying those standards universally, almost all University Varsity sport program articles would come crashing down. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And neither were drafted. Victoria Vikes predates the drafting process altogether (first edit 2005/Jan/23); the article on the woman's basketball team was made directly in mainspace by an auto-confirmed editor who should in all honesty know better. I'm more than happy to send both articles to WP:Articles for Deletion for you, since you seem more interested in using them as camel's noses in tents rather than improving them so that they meet Wikipedia policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made an unfounded assertion about my interests (re: camel's noses).
Nevertheless, would you say then that there is likely a large number of varsity sport articles that would not be in compliance with current standards if they were reviewed? TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're only interested in using these articles to argue for your own, then by all means WP:Village pump (policy) and WT:Notability are that way. But this page is not the place to try to sneak in an argument to change our policies in that regard by using articles that are tangential to your draft, and every argument you make on that front is time that could be better spent looking for better sources for your articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_16&oldid=1220141635"