Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 3 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 5 >
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.


January 4[edit]

00:03:34, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Amysisson[edit]


This is in regards to a draft page for the Peggy Lane book series. (I tried to follow the instructions but the link is not showing. Here it is again:

Draft:Peggy_Lane_Theater_Stories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amysisson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick review! I am puzzled as to why this draft was not approved -- only because I modeled this after this page:

Rick Brant

This is a boys' series by the same publisher. My reviewer suggested that the easiest way to show a series is notable is to find published reviews. However, I don't believe there are links to published reviews on the Rick Brant page.

A minor point (and I defer to your expertise on this!): the Grosset & Dunlap page lists the various series they published. I added Peggy Lane to that list just before beginning my draft article. It seems to me that it's notable to describe any of the series they published since they were a major publisher and their various series are extensively studied within popular culture academia.

More importantly, however, I'm concerned because girls/women are more overlooked in history, including popular culture history. I believe it's notable that this series existed for girls. I will be looking for reviews, but if I do not find any, one reason may be that girls' books were not reviewed as frequently as boys' books during the 1960s. I feel that to not note this series' existence, when the Rick Brant page does not seem to have much more in the way of reviews than this series does, may be perpetuating the imbalance.

Thank you for your consideration! Amysisson (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amysisson The boys' series you mention has similar problems as to your draft, it is lacking in independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, and has been marked as such. Please see other stuff exists; volunteers do their best to get around to the over six million articles we have to address any issues, but some inevitably get by us- this does not mean that more problematic content should be accepted, compounding the problem. It is possible that both the boys' series and the one you write about here would not merit standalone articles, but some sort of mention on the page of the publisher(I don't know, just speculating). For any draft to pass the AFC process, it must do a minimum of summarizing at least three independent reliable sources(which with books is usually independent/unsolicited reviews). 331dot (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:25:15, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Araz Ali7[edit]


Araz Ali7 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:14:16, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Frank6677[edit]


Frank6677 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wouldnt it be much much much better to offer to fix the article instead of immediately throwing all sorts of threats????? hours doing research on this article and you want to force us to do hours more work learning the article creation process ?????????????? good gawd

Frank6677 I take "we" to mean that you are associated with MetroFire Boston. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Yes, if you are creating and submitting a draft, you need to do the work to get it to standards. The draft does not need to be a complete, finished article, but you must summarize what at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. I don't see where you have been threatened, but Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. Your draft has a lot of technical information that I doubt was from an independent source.. Writing an article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended to first gain experience by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:51, 4 January 2022 review of submission by GbessayESMomoh[edit]


GbessayESMomoh (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC) I need short direction on how to enhance my Wikipedia account and submit article.[reply]

GbessayWSMomoh New users cannot directly create articles, but you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft for review. Writing an article is the hardest thing to attempt to do here, and it is highly recommended that you use the new user tutorial and spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:37, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Princesalvadordali[edit]


HI im disabled and im finding it hard to publish a page about my documentary ,why is it rejected ?

im not sure what im doing maybe a small mistake on my behalf, sorry , i am disabled and i am finding theis difficult.

i want to publish a wiki about my tv show; and create a biography on me Rhysasasurous Rex perhaps u could explain what i doing incorrectly pleased

Princesalvadordali (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi im disabled and id like to make a wiki page about my asperational disability show

could you please explain what i need to do to not be rejected?

Princesalvadordali (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princesalvadordali I wish you good luck with your show and overcoming disability, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your show and yourself. Wikipedia is interested in what published independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you and or your show, not what you want to say about it. This would be things like news reports. You may use social media to tell the world about yourself and your show. Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is not encouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:41, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Australianpeter[edit]


Hi, sorry for the possibly dumb questions below but this is my first attempt at adding an article.

I've made a bunch of updates to the citations within the article - I thought I'd limited myself to reputable sources (I didn't include references from things like our local newspapers or blogs but limited to sources like nationally-recognized news sources and magazines, press releases from sources where awards etc were bestowed and sources of truth for Australian music information (like APRA AMCOS and the Australian Music Centre). I had thought that being the recipient of an APRA Art Music award for composition would have been sufficient to indicate that Sally Greenaway was suitable for inclusion in the list of Australian women composers.

I hope this is more along the lines of what is expected, and if note please let me know what other information I can provide.

Australian female composers are pretty niche and not often covered in the press (and this is reflected in some of the other existing pages) but I hope there's enough information there now.

Please don't copy your draft contents here, instead, provide a link to the draft so other's can easely follow it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:45, 4 January 2022 review of draft by MichaelPWhite[edit]


Hi. We're seeking support to get the Hyliion page published please, which has been a working draft since October 2020. The latest feedback flagged a lack of reliable sources, which doesn't make sense since this is a listed company. Sources used in the article include independently published pieces across Bloomberg, Yahoo, Forbes, Business Wire, an academic source, a Gov source, and various respected trade outlets. Please can you help provide further direction to get this page live?

As we have a conflict of interest, we are keen to work with the Wikipedia community to get changes approved in a compliant way.

MichaelPWhite (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelPWhite As noted by the reviewer, the draft just lists and cites the routine business transactions of this company, like acquisitions and product related announcements. Wikipedia articles about companies must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The key here is "significant coverage"; the coverage must go beyond the mere reporting of the company's activities, such as describing the influence and history of the company(if others have written about it, not the company itself).
And who is "we"? From reading your user page I gather you may be a paid editor, but I'm not clear on if you represent this company. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thanks for your quick response. I am an official representative of Hyliion, although the first draft of the page was started organically by social media followers. So we've been keen to try and support getting the page live. We've taken your feedback onboard and will see what we can do. (MichaelPWhite (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

10:21:12, 4 January 2022 review of submission by 78.60.128.32[edit]

I think my Wikipedia page is good. It doesn’t contain anything offensive and it would be very nice to have a Wikipedia page. Thank you! 78.60.128.32 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, and is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:57, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Anjumanea[edit]


This is first page created to publish anjuman e ashrafiya charitable trust details in public to help needy and poor. Anjumanea (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjumanea Wikipedia is not a place to tell about good causes. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own, and not based on any materials put out by the organization, to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:33, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Kelvin Gates[edit]


I would like to understand why this article does not meet the requirements, and added relevant information and reliable sources. I have followed the prescribed guidelines and made the article as detailed as possible. Please could you help me identify what else I need to add on this article to get it published. Thank you

Kelvin Gates (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Gates I'm afraid that like many people, you have some misunderstandings as to what Wikipedis is. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- and not based on any materials put out by the company or its associates- to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The "Company aims, value and culture" section is impossible to independently verify and should be removed. The rest of the draft is sourced to other Wikipedia articles(you cannot use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles), profile type entries, brief mentions, or basic announcements, none of which establishes notability. Please read Your First Article.
From the writing and the fact that this is the only topic you have edited about, I gather that you have an association with this company. If so, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about the company and all materials put out by the company(including interviews) and only summarize what others say about the company in independent sources. Most people associated with a company find that very difficult. Even if you succeed in getting a draft accepted, you would not be able to directly edit it afterwards, and would be limited to indirect edit requests. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:09:10, 4 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Qail97[edit]


I have the world's highest IQ score (416 IQ), and my name is Kurt Lopez-davis. This is an extremely notable occurrence, but I have no one that is willing to record my name on any websites.

I have created this IQ test and recorded my best thoughts: https://pastebin.com/csMgaHJd https://pastebin.com/Y2vDggXq

  1. 16, #17, #9, and #37 are ground-breaking science/philosophy, and all worthy of a Nobel Prize despite the current lack of evidence.

Qail97 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:29, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview[edit]


Dear editors at WP, I am signature Flyview, and just recently posted my first project/article called “Flywheel exercise”=”Flywheel training”, which is a form of “Resistance training”(see WP) using the inertia of flywheels instead of weights. Three editors have sent similar critical arguments, concerning copyright violation, and so far rejected my contribution to WP, and I therefore would like to learn more: Editors/signatures Greenman, Caleb Stanford and DGC wrote: Comment: apparentlycopiedfrom elswhere DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC); Comment: Although I cannot find the source, the text is clearly copied from somewhere. Greenman (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC); Comment: Hello, this article text reads like it was copied from somewhere. What was the source? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I claim my text is original, and that no book, scientific article or other body holds the copyright to my text as written here. What is the specific view of these editors? Are they claiming plagiarism? This should be easy to check and resolve.

I used some 50 (out of 200 written on this specific subject), mainly scientific, published references to support the text that I shaped to be suitable and understood by both interested trainees and scientists, and trying to fit an encyclopedia. I have previously written 50 peer-reviewed papers on muscle physiology, biomechanics, elite sports, rehabilitation, orthopedic surgery and space medicine; which has been my hobby for most of my academic career (see PubMed; search: Berg HE). In order to get some acquaintance to WP editing (including the tedious text formatting) I helped editing the item “Strength training” (that is currently warned to lack scientific/medical referencing). This was a nice experience and I have added some cornerstone references to this wide field of physical exercise. I am more than willing to adapt to the rules and language of WP, which I think is a wonderful idea and website!

Best Regards/signature Flyview

Flyview (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlyView, It is clearly a cut and paste copyright violation. The fact none of us can find the original source does not change the facts that the article has clear artifacts of being lifted from some place else, possibly multiple places. Without you admitting and correcting that issue, the article will remain rejected.Slywriter (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flyview- just another edit to ping.Slywriter (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:27:46, 4 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Babroseker[edit]


I'm unsure as to what else to add/edit to the submission for acceptance. I'm not looking to advertise anything, but rather factually state the existence and purpose of the organization as it is referenced on other Wikipedia pages. I've provided external links and references to information stated in the entry.

Help.

Regards, Bruce

Babroseker (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babroseker "State the existence and purpose of the organization" is the definition of promotion. You don't have to be selling something or soliciting customers. Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about the subject- and mere existence does not qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An organization merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(and not based on any materials put out by the organization, its staff, or associates), showing how the organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. An article needs to summarize those independent sources. Primary sources like government documents or anything from the organization do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. If no independent sources give this organization coverage, beyond the mere reporting of its activities, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you are associated with this organization, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures(any paid relationship with a topic must be disclosed, per the Terms of Use). You don't have to be paid in money to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:56, 4 January 2022 review of draft by DKingWorldwide[edit]


I need help in terms of this comment below for my wiki draft for artist Kim Donghyuk: Comment: evaluated activities since 2014 (which was when the article was cut to redirect), activities here are mainly within the band and/or with other band members. imo, does not satisfy individual musician bio yet. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My question is: Although he does not have a solo yet, he has been a featured singer in a couple of songs, as follow: "Secret" (Bobby Feat. DK & Katie) 2017 Love and Fall “Ur SOUL Ur BodY” (Bobby feat. DK) 2021 Lucky Man

Aside from that, Kim Donghyuk has actually produced and written a song for the group as shown at this line below: On February 6, 2020, iKON released their third EP, iDecide, which included five tracks with Dive as the lead single.[15] Kim Dong-hyuk debuted as songwriter and record producer of “Flower” ((너란 바람 따라; neolan balam ttala; lit.

There are additional activities that he is now involved in: Starting Dec 2021, Kim Dong-hyuk is actively hosting 2 radio programs, iKON Day at Station Z 89.1 and iKON's Zero Zone Diary, with the latter, is focusing on educating and advancing sustainability.

We understand that this might not be considered as individual musician activities, however, maybe there are any categories that he can be included in? Please advise. Also is there anything that I should take off to fit the requirement? Please help. Thank you so much.

DKingWorldwide (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DKingWorldwide Who is "we"? This account should only be operated by a single person. If your username is that of a group, you will need to change it at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
If this musician has started a solo career, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources of his solo career, and he must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician by himself(not as part of a group). If he is more notable for his non-music work(the radio program work), he might meet the broader definition of a notable person, but, again, there must be significant coverage in independent reliable sources of him with regards to his individual work. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:04, 4 January 2022 review of submission by ZX2006XZ[edit]


So, the new trailer came out today, a new poster.

https://youtube.com/0U0L4uT0btQ

Does this still mean that I have to wait till the movie comes out on January 28? ZX2006XZ (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave that up to an admin like @Robert McClenon:, but I assume his answer would be that yes, you should wait. Bkissin (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:39, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Mastetchi[edit]


"not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is not a valid reason to keep article in draft space. Take it to WP:AfD for broader review and discussion. Mastetchi (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mastetchi (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mastetchi, when I see David founded Gokhshtein Media, a unique and revolutionary portal for all things cryptocurrency, I wonder why the draft hasn't been deleted as blatantly promotional. Incidentally, it's oddly chummy of the draft to refer to the man not as "Gokhshtein" but as "David". -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary, I've taken out the promotional area and generally edited the article as per your observation. Kindly look through the draft again. Thanks

Mastetchi (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mastetchi, in the very first sentence, we read that he's a "personality" and a "guru". Citing not promotionalism but (lack of) demonstrated notability, Theroadislong rejected Draft:David Gokhshtein, with a big "STOP" sign; and QuantumRealm rejected Draft:David E Gokhshtein, again with a big "STOP" sign. I appreciate your politeness and eagerness to please, but please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary: Judging by the fact that he has been the subject of multiple draft articles, I wonder if there are any WP:PAID or WP:CANVASS concerns here. Bkissin (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:42, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Ilbibliothecario[edit]


I'm having trouble submitting this article as I'm not sure how to create footnotes. I have cited the source material but don't know how to properly format it as a citation. The entire bio can be referenced from the magazine articles attached to this entry.

Ilbibliothecario (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently accepted by Rusalkii. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_January_4&oldid=1064745830"