Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 2

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 1 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 3 >
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.


August 2

edit

05:45, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Apples&oranges1

edit

Article Creation for Jay Doctora page. Apples&oranges1 (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&oranges1: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved your draft to Draft:Josef Doctora, and declined it for insufficient sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:07, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Muam7861

edit

I want to change my draft name Muam7861 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muam7861: I've moved it to Draft:Hudutsuz Sevda. Not that it matters, since drafts are moved to their correct title anyway, if/when they are accepted for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muam7861: please do not submit the redirect which was left behind when I moved your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and don't add redirect templates into content pages, that is not how you move the page or change the title. Please ask for advice, if you don't know how something is done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Debora at Digital WK

edit

We would like to understand what else could we do to submit this related content. We don't consider it spam, since we even tried to list competition as an evaluation of the market with reliable sources. we present the company later on the page but we do not use commercial "talk", we just present dates and features. without categorizing them as an ad would. thanks! Debora at Digital WK (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Debora at Digital WK: whether you consider it spam is not really the point; we do, and that's why the draft has been rejected. Rejection means the end of the road.
Going forward, as you're paid to create this content, I'm going to largely leave it for you to figure out how it's done (after all, I don't ask you to do my job for me, right?). I'll give you this one tip, though: Wikipedia articles are based on summaries of what independent and reliable third parties (ideally secondary sources) have said about a subject, not what the subject itself wants to tell the world about itself. See WP:42 and WP:BACKWARD for more on this, and WP:NCORP for the guideline your draft needs to meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'll also put this standard comment in here: (I know that paid editors often don't want to hear it, but why would you expect to take on a task without appropriate training?) My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 2 August 2024 review of submission by OxygenToxicity

edit

Hey guys, this my first attempt at creating an article. Keen for your advice and what help you can give :) The submission was declined because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources" and it needs more in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources.

The sources I've cited to my understanding meet that criteria. In particular, the main documents from the heritage listing are secondary and independent government sources, thoroughly in-depth, and generally considered to be reliable. I have used one source from the church diocese to show that the building is still in active use, and that's it. What am I missing? Cheers! OxygenToxicity (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OxygenToxicity: actually, the sources don't meet that standard, as they're all primary. However, given that this building is in the heritage register, that probably makes it notable per WP:GEOFEAT. Pinging the reviewer SafariScribe for their comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing. So documentation such as the heritage assessment is independent, but still considered a primary source? I took it to be secondary because it provided an analysis and evaluation of the building and its history to determine its significance community/state. OxygenToxicity (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OxygenToxicity: gov't and judicial documents are usually primary, yes. I didn't look at these particular ones, I guess it's not inconceivable that they might have included secondary analysis and commentary, in which case it might count as secondary. But the WA gov't is just a single source, so still wouldn't amount to notability per WP:GNG. (Having said which, there may well be other sources out there, whether online or in print, which could satisfy the GNG requirements, so I'm not saying this subject isn't notable.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yeah okay, cheers. And thanks for your time, I'm trying to do this all by the book but there's a lot to learn! I'm happy to keep plugging away in the sandbox and will do some more research, and see what @SafariScribe says. OxygenToxicity (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Hzt0208042508415531 tw

edit

My submission was rejected triple by a same user, but there were no specific suggestions for improvement. He said that my draft is not neutral. However, this article is originally in Chinese wikipedia and there is no problem in neutrality perspective. I also think so and just translate it honestly. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: I don't know what "rejected triple" means, but from the edit history it seems this draft has been declined (not rejected) once, nearly six months ago. If you wish to query that decline, you should probably ask the reviewer directly.
Whether the corresponding article has been accepted into the Chinese-language Wikipedia is immaterial, as every language version is completely separate. To be accepted here, the draft will have to comply with our rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw I see it declined once only, looking at the history, with one prior comment, and no work since it was declined.
Please understand that the English Language and the Chinese Language versions of Wikipedia are independent and have different criteria.
First, I think you need a native speaker of English to solve the prose issues, and second use {{Translated page}} to attribute it to the source article 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 2 August 2024 review of submission by 11mohammadahmedpk

edit

hey my page request has been declined what does it mean 

11mohammadahmedpk (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@11mohammadahmedpk: it means that it hasn't been accepted for publication at this time, because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you are having a very common experience for new editors who plunge straight into the very challenging task of trying to create a new article before they have spent time learning the necessary sklils. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Έλαναφάμε2024

edit

What went well, what should I do better, please give me some advice so I can resubmit my page and correct it. Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Έλαναφάμε2024: Unfortunately your draft has been rejected and cannot be resubmited. I hate to break it to you but a YouTube channel with 500 subscribers is not going to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I suggest you try some smaller edits first, like the task center lists, to get a hang of how Wikipedia works before submitting another article. C F A 💬 20:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, tell me what I should do better, I understand it doesn’t meet the criteria, but at least tell me how to improve, or find the information yourself.
I do not like when people tell me I’m wrong and don’t point out, I would appreciate if you give me advice. Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There simply isn't anything you can do the topic is not notable. see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Έλαναφάμε2024: the earlier comment referred, and in fact linked, to our notability requirements, and more specifically the general notability guideline. I suggest you study that carefully. Every subject must demonstrate notability in order to be accepted for publication here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i understand Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afsheen_(musician)

edit

Hi guys! I had discussions with others editors about this draft on the help page. Nobody additional left their opinion, so I wanted to ask you. Maybe there are some new editors, with experience with music articles - Draft:Afsheen (musician) J2009j (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user and I had a long dicussion about this on my talk page here.
To @J2009j: Volunteers at the AfC help desk are not going to review your draft. If it is submitted, it has been added to the category of unreviewed drafts and another reviewer will find it eventually. Because of how many there are, it could be days, weeks, or months until that happens, unfortunately. C F A 💬 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will waiting, maybe someone knows if we can apply category musician or general notability. J2009j (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Danny8384535

edit

i added sources but it still said i needed to add them Danny8384535 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danny8384535: The topic may be notable (though I suggest you read WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS), but many of the sources you have listed are not reliable. Findagrave.com is not a reliable source and should be replaced with reliable, secondary sources. C F A 💬 20:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if find a grave isnt reliable, then what obituary website is? find a grave is the only one im aware of Danny8384535 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of them. The only type of obituary that would be reliable would be those published in independent, reliable sources, like the NYT obituaries. C F A 💬 14:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually requested speedy deletion on this, but the request went stale. My concerns are outlined in the comments I left there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Danny8384535, I encourage you to read WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPCRIME before doing anything else with this article. C F A 💬 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok ty Danny8384535 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_2&oldid=1239237049"