Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 5 << Mar | April | May >> April 7 >
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 6[edit]

03:42:44, 6 April 2022 review of draft by VistaXL[edit]


I've just had an article rejected and would like some help correcting it.

VistaXL (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VistaXL (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, it was declined because we already have an article on Recreational vehicle. Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:50, 6 April 2022 review of submission by DarylStories YT[edit]


DarylStories YT (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above, your draft was rejected the topic (namely you) is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tootara[edit]

My [[1]] was declined with the below statement.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please let me know how to improve it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARA Software Development (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: User indeffed after posting and draft tagged for CSD by another user Justiyaya 12:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:14, 6 April 2022 review of submission by PriyadharshiniRajkumar[edit]

This is Actress Priyadharshini Rajkumar A Notable person in Film Industry who worked with many stars as supporting artist in popular movies, and have given the references as the same reference PriyadharshiniRajkumar (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, notability cannot be inherited by working with "stars". Theroadislong (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:32, 6 April 2022 review of draft by Швец Виталий[edit]


Швец Виталий (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What looks like advertisement in draft?
This draft is translated page from russian Wikipedia and i thought it should be auto confirmed. Швец Виталий (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Translations are not automatically accepted. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necssarily acceptable on another. The draft only tells about this man and what he has done. English Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabur Ali[edit]

SABUR ALI is an Indian poet,born and brought up in a village named Balikuri , Barpeta district of Assam in India He has already published so many of his poems as a co-author.He is a co-author of 20 books. He has already deserved so many national and international accolades for his poems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SABUR ALI Author (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my article declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SABUR ALI Author (talk • contribs) 17:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SABUR ALI Author You appear to be editing about yourself. This is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. Your draft was deleted as promotional because it did little more than state that you exist.
If you are not writing about yourself, please change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:13:17, 6 April 2022 review of draft by Mtnocean[edit]


Mtnocean (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor left revision suggestions on the page "Draft:Form4." I made those revisions and then notified that editor of those changes. Then another editor declined the page (they said because it read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry). I based the page on other approved pages in the same field (architecture firms). What, specifically, should be revised next to make it more appropriate for inclusion? Thank you.

23:33:07, 6 April 2022 review of draft by 2601:18E:8201:7B50:A4D9:1D2A:997:6433[edit]


I found this interesting in that these are sources for traditional publishers much more prominent than Wikipedia. In any case, other editors elsewhere did not question that notability of this individual with the same sources, especially considering the numerous individuals in this field who already have notability who have established far less longevity or whose pages are more akin to promotional than actual substance (see composer Michael Vincent Waller for a good example of an entry that appeared to be written full of promotional quotes rather than suggested notability standards).

In any case, it is useless to try to assess the response and I left this article behind. He is, of course, a notable figure - his collected artistic papers and scores, multiple awards, published articles, and books edited, published by traditional publishers, as well as his professional and public interactions indicate.

It is not required that Wikipedia editors acknowledge that, although the very first Wikipedia editor had clearly stated Wikipedia standards of notability were not the problem. What was the conflict? His artistic and pedagogical work was acknowledged by numerous real world accomplishments, the highlights of which were listed. He is older now and much less active. Many sources are no longer available online or never were. The SUNY Buffalo Peter Gena Collection, the award of the French government, the John Cage Reader book, and things like the podcasts with Studs Turkel, Other Minds, and his releases on famous experimental music labels, like Lovely Music, the documentation of the Kyle Gann article, etc. will suffice for a legacy as shown online at this moment and the simple Wikipedia article can come when editors are ready to cite better reasons for now.

As it is useless, I gave this up. That said, I will mention the draft to others who have more time and wherewithal to meet your standards while I get back to my own work. Like I said, the Peter Gena Collection at SUNY Buffalo, The John Cage Reader, the French government award, the decades of work on DNA Music, the New Music America festival, and the record releases on a historical music label, Lovely Music, known to all as the work of Robert Ashley’s widow, Mimi Johnson, that catalogues the most prominent musicians of that era, all these facts existing by nature of their production, realization, and occurrence will do for Peter Gena.

I think if there were editors that were familiar with the topics they edited this would be helpful. These sources would make more sense to them - for example, papers/collections are held by museums and institutions for notable artists in perpetuity requiring significant archival expense and research and are awarded only in circumstances where it has been deemed of historic importance to preserve the physical materials, artworks, etc. Primary sources now removed had actually improved the draft by providing supplementary commentary on sources with significant independent coverage that offered the context. The removal of them weakened the draft and the resources for the readers. Other sources suggested by Wikipedia, including Wikiquotes, had also improved the draft. I write for traditional media and academic journals. What can I say? I will leave the draft to someone who better understands what is up.

2601:18E:8201:7B50:A4D9:1D2A:997:6433 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor - First of all, I'm sorry to hear that you had a poor experience with your draft. From what I can tell, nobody has explicitly shown you the relevant notability guidelines, which in this case are WP:NCOMPOSER and WP:NPROF. To demonstrate notability, the subject must reach one or both of these standards (or the general notability guideline). To briefly address your concern about other articles' existence, I will point you to WP:OSE and state that you may nominate that article at WP:AFD if you feel the subject is not notable. I also want to point out that sources are not required to be available online, so non-internet sources are perfectly fine. Best of luck to you with your draft, feel free to contact me on [talk page] if you have any further questions. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 03:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_April_6&oldid=1082234346"