Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 8 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 10 >
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.


February 9[edit]

00:08:06, 9 February 2022 review of draft by Dgregory4[edit]


To Whom It May Concern,

I have a question about notability. While I recognize that my draft has deficiencies with respect to secondary source material, I am not sure why the subject's notability is in question. In the Wikipedia notability guidelines it states that "The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses." My professor did have a Festschrift written in his honor (published by Wipf and Stock) which I listed under his writings. Why does this not satisfy the notability requirement?

I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Dgregory4 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4 Dgregory4 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dgregory4, comment left by reviewer was too much unsourced content and please read WP:REFB(→) for help with correcctly formatting sources. The notability issue isn't about having Festschrift or not. But rather, much of the text isn't backed by secondary sources, which you acknowledged, thus notability is questioned. Additionally, you had placed Festschrift under the Writings section, which is usually selected writings by the subject, not about the subject or for the subject. I would have skipped evaluating the list myself if the prose isn't sourced properly. Instead, it should be integrated into prose, i.e. "a Festschift about/for <topic>/<person> was complied by person(s) in <year>.", or simply listed in a section on its own (usually Honours and awards).
Do take note that as the subject is living still, the standards at WP:BLP is pretty much applicable. Thus you are required to find secondary source materials for every possible contentious statement made in the article. – robertsky (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Theroadislong: just to bring attention of request for review to you. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:11:07, 9 February 2022 review of submission by ABHIMI[edit]

ABHIMI (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is an encyclopedia, not a place for somebody to whine about how they want to become rich and famous. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:48, 9 February 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국[edit]

Please re-review it 고양이 발자국 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the replies you received here on 27 January, 28 January, and 4 February; meanwhile, you have not edited the draft at all since it was rejected on 26 January, except for one attempt to remove the "rejected" template. Asking for a new review without addressing any of that is a waste of your own time, and the time of the volunteer reviewers. --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:54, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Bishalkarkinp[edit]

}} Bishalkarkinp (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishalkarkinp You don't ask a question, but please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources state. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Non-notable local journalist autobiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:15, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Jacobariel91[edit]


Jacobariel91 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The draft (which you didn't read) had been modified from the original substantially - please provide some advise on the new draft, if you can. Thanks Jacobariel91 (talk)

It is never a good idea to create a new draft when a previous draft has been declined or rejected. The first draft is at Draft:ElectReon Wireless, the second one at Draft:Electreon, and now there is apparently a third one; please don't create new draft versions, it just wastes people's time. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will say one thing (which applies to all three draft versions, I think) : the two publications from the Swedish Transport Authority (a 78-page report and a single-page appendix) don't verify the claims that they are supposed to support, and don't serve to show notability for the company. --bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:38, 9 February 2022 review of draft by BABA IS YOU[edit]


I need help with finding more Peeps variations as well as adding references to the page. Additionally, I would like the article to be proofread, and see if there are any mistakes. BABA IS YOU (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would never be a viable topic for a standalone article. May be worth a mention at Peeps if deemed relevant or notable. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB How so? I believe the topic can have its own standalone article. Considering the wide variety of variations that Peeps has, as well as the popularity of it, I believe there can be an article listing the different Peeps variations. BABA IS YOU (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe and what you can prove are two very different things. ValarianB (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:50, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Mrwicked619[edit]


Mrwicked619 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Why was my article declined?[reply]

No draft specified, but last edited draft was Draft:Silencer (rapper). The reviewer who declined your draft was right in their decision. Go through the links in the decline rationale for more information on citing sources. – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:31, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Gloriajjoz[edit]


Hello,

Please re-review as the sources listed are secondary and are true to the information listed in the page. We have been working hard on this please, so if this page still does not qualify for publishing, please advise on why the sources are not worthy and where specifically to improve. Please do not delete the page as it has been a lot to type up and gather. I truly appreciate your review.

Thank you!

Gloriajjoz (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloriajjoz: I see that the draft was rejected, but the editor who rejected it was actually not someone who should have been reviewing drafts at all, and the rejection rationale "This article is failed maximum times of submission" is not valid. So I won't give you the usual response to editors who ask about rejected drafts; it is possible that this could be reviewed again, but I'm afraid you would have to revise it a bit, first. There are three sources: one mention in GQ, in a list of artists and producers who appeared on an album. That is not something that shows notability. The second source is a trivial mention on something that looks like a music blog, and unlikely to be a reliable source. And the third source, which you added after the most recent decline of the draft, is three sentences in another list published by XXL Mag. Essentially, all that these sources say is that the producers have worked with a notable person – but there is very little about them. What is required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the people themselves. In addition, please cut down the huge table that takes up most of the space in the draft. Don't include every single detail about each track, and don't add tracks unless there are sources for them (NOT YouTube or Spotify or other music streaming websites, nor commercial websites!)
You say We have been working hard on this – who are "we" in this context? --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just would added based on reading the XXL Mag source, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. They are on a path to notability, but not there yet.Slywriter (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. I said above that the draft would need to be revised, but I should add (so as not to give Gloriajjoz the impression that it'll be fine with a bit of revision) that no amount of editing can fix a lack of notability, and it seems pretty likely that these guys aren't notable just yet. --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gloriajjoz: The article contains almost no biographical info, info that when published in the media would tell us that the subjects are notable. Hopefully later on they will get more coverage and that can be used to build this up. Please also see WP:COI. Lastly, the long list of production credits are unsourced. Without proper sourcing (and maybe even with), it's not suitable for an article. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:37, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Brittanyfitzerald[edit]

I am submitting this page because it is a charter school district in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The article includes relevant information as well as primary and secondary references. All large school systems in the area have Wiki pages. What will help the article get approved? Brittanyfitzerald (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brittanyfitzerald: I made some structural changes to the article but it's still going to have challenges since it's poorly sourced. High schools are not inherently notable in Wikipedia's eyes, and there's no indication based on the references that these schools are notable. See WP:NHSCHOOL. You can't point to other articles as examples since there are so many that were created before anyone was applying notability standards. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:59:34, 9 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Fmik36[edit]


I want to understand how i can edit my current article to enable me to publish it. please give me more details on how my sources are not primary or significant Fmik36 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fmik36: I restructured the article to make it more conforming with our usual style. It's closer to being acceptable, but to be safe when you resubmit it, you'll want to go through and make sure that every single thing you've written is sourced with an independent, reliable source, and that you not add unencyclopedic phrases like "...is a proud honorary director..." or "...was educated at the prestigious High school...". The tone needs to be more formal. Also, if you are connected to the subject, please read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


thank you for your response. I have added a couple more sources from bloomberg and the national. how do I know if my sources are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmik36 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fmik36 I have moved it to mainspace. I would make a few comments.
  1. The charges against him, even if dropped, probably should be in the article. It appears to be the main reason that he was mentioned in a number of the news references.
  2. In regards to the sources, I think the news sources are pretty strong. The ones from Ramallah Friends School are suitable for background.
  3. For your next step. It would be reasonable to add Mr. Al Tabari to the list of alumni at Ramallah_Friends_Schools#Notable_alumni with a reference. You may want to work on getting references for the other alumni listed there.Naraht (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_February_9&oldid=1072125564"