Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 28 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 30 >
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 29[edit]

00:21, 29 August 2023 review of submission by NooterSuper[edit]

Hi, I tried to make a draft for this page and it was declined because the reviewer said it “didn’t exist” even though it clearly did, so how do I prove him wrong? Also check Springfield Gardens LIRR station just for extra proof. NooterSuper (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@nootersuper: then surely you can find sources proving it exists? ltbdl (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NooterSuper (ec) I fixed the link to your draft. If you have reliable sources that show this station existed, please offer them. Any article about this station should summarize what is said about it by reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Reid1801[edit]

My draft was rejected on 26 August with the claim that:

The draft cannot be accepted as it heavily relies on Oliver [i.e. the subject] as a source. Using an article's subject as a source in a Wikipedia context is only allowed if an article doesn't primarily rely on the subject as a source. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There are two problems with this ruling. One is that the draft contains 17 references to independent reviews of Oliver's work, references that backup the substantive claims about his work that are made in the draft. In this sense, the draft does NOT rely on heavily on the subject himself.

The second problem is that the other references cover his biography and are based on his published autobiographical memoir. These references are unavoidable when it comes to the biography of minor literary writers because (unlike major writers) no one else has written biographies of them. If you look at writers listed on the wikipedia list of Australian poets at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_poets you will find that in many of the entries, the biographical information comes either directly or indirectly from the poets themselves. There are no alternative sources.

This leaves Wikipedia with two unattractive options. The first would be to cull about half of the Wikipeda pages for minor but distinguished people in many fields (and not just the field of poetry). This first approach would reduce the utility of Wikipedia immensely.

The second option would be to retain their pages, but remove most of the biographical information. This would also greatly diminish Wikipedia.

Incidentally, if you are going to be consistent in ruling against references to a person's published autobiography, you will need to remove most of the biographical information in the Wikipedia page on St. Augustine, since that information comes directly or indirectly from his 'Confessions'.

So my question is: What do you want me to do? Do you really want me to remove the biographical information?

I point out, again, that it is based on a published memoir and is thus a verifiable source. I also point to the many reviews of Oliver's work as evidence that he meets the notability standard and deserves a Wikipedia page. I could list another hundred reviews, if that is in doubt. Reid1801 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reid1801: just because something is published, doesn't mean it is necessarily reliable. Anyone can write and self-publish their own autobio, making whatever claims they wish about themselves. (Obviously I'm not saying this person's autobio is unreliable, only that it could be.) Closer primary sources can only be used to verify entirely uncontentious statements, and cannot be used to establish notability.
Another point: reviews of Oliver's work may may his work notable, but that does not, in and of itself, make him notable, as notability is not inherited or otherwise transferred. It could be that if the critical reviews are exceptionally significant, this may potentially satisfy WP:POET #4, but that bar is quite high and we would need to see clear evidence that it has been met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Viviinnovatives[edit]

Hello Team , I am requesting to approve articles. I have given all required reference to validate source of truth. The reviewer doesn't understand source truth. I have given all the information to validate the truth of the information in the article. Please review and approve it.

Example - https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/the-road-to-tokyo/article35911428.ece https://m.dinamalar.com/detail.php?id=2828566 Also Mr Seshadri Nathan Sukumaran was conferred with the esteemed KALAIMAMANI title, the highest honor bestowed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, accompanied by a Gold medal. 

Viviinnovatives (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viviinnovatives: you have cited Wikipedia several times, which you cannot do; Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. You have also cited YouTube, which is user-generated and in most cases not reliable and/or independent. You have also left some of the content unreferenced (eg. which source gives this person's DOB?). Therefore the draft was correctly declined for being insufficiently supported by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I might add that it is rather disrespectful to accuse a reviewer of not "understanding", when this draft has in fact been declined by two separate reviewers, who between them have 20+ years and 40,000+ edits under their belt, and in any case wouldn't be AfC reviewers without a pretty good understanding of the various guidelines and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Vozaba85[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure what the issue is and why the draft keeps getting declined. Do you have anyone who can assist in editing this page in a way that would suit Wikipedia? Please let us know and we will gladly provide all the details. Vozaba85 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Only a single person should have access to your account. Do you represent this professor or his university? The reviewers have left message on the draft telling you what you need to do. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vozaba85: have you read any of the decline messages? They will give the reason(s) for declining. In short, far too much of the content is unreferenced, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 29 August 2023 review of submission by 122.168.29.85[edit]

actully this is the new concept about brassets (i work on it to make perfect) if you want to know more about brasset let me know. 122.168.29.85 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia is not the place for WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Qcne (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to tell the world about your inventions, try some social media or blogging site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 29 August 2023 review of submission by 149.241.253.112[edit]

Hello I was hoping to get some help with this creation of a page, I know it needs articles that are valid/relevant/verified however I believe I have provided them from Forbes, CNBC etc, would anyone be able to give guidance? 149.241.253.112 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the sources themselves that are the issue, but their content. They largely discuss the routine business activities of the company(like the raising of funds) and do not go into detail about what makes the company important/significant/influential as a company as the sources see it. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Chevsi[edit]

Good afternoon, Can you please advise what changes are required to this page in order to have a successful publishing? Thanks Chevsi (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Hondapolo[edit]

This person does not seem to have much media coverage. How will I get Independent sources for citation/reference? But all his works are verified by authentic sources like architect associations and institutions. He seems to be a deserving person. I am trying to add people who are experts in their own field and are not recognised by the mainline media. I am a novice in Wikipedia editing. Please help. Hondapolo (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that neither all his works are verified by authentic sources nor He seems to be a deserving person is of any relevance in deciding whether to accept a draft into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles on things that exist and things that don't exist (and some hoaxes!), on deserving and thoroughly undeserving people. What is required is that several people wholly unconnected with the subject should have chosen to spend time researching and writing about the subject in depth, with a quality of care, independence, and fact-checking that a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking has been willing to publish them.
If you can find at least three such sources, then there can be an article, which should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say.
If, as you suggest, such sources do not exist, then there cannot be an article about him, because there is literally almost nothing which can be put into an article. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Arjun162[edit]

I need time to find "reliable sources" to cite. Arjun162 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjun162: assuming nobody tags this for speedy deletion, you have six months from the last human edit, before the draft gets automatically deleted.
That said, sounds like you're going about this the wrong way. You shouldn't first write what you want, and then try to find sources that support what you've written. You should first find reliable published sources, and summarise what they've said about the subject, citing each source as you go; there's your article and your referencing done! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you for notifying me about the time. I would like to tell that I have not "written what I like" but carefully gathered my information from sources directly and indirectly related to academic field and the educational institution "Sita Shiromani Degree College". There are few colleges in Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad) that provide quality education and are not owned by Central or State government. This is a notable institution, familiar to everyone in Prayagraj. I am currently looking for proper sources I can cite on Wiki. If there is any other advice, please let me know; I'd be glad to learn and improve. Arjun162 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 29 August 2023 review of submission by 14.139.207.130[edit]

why are you rejecting my artcle again and again, what's the problem on that ? 14.139.207.130 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no suggestion that the subject is notable, and even less evidence. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform where anyone can tell the world about themselves and their cat, or generally write whatever they want. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT a potential article, you are NOT notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a social media website. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 29 August 2023 review of submission by AMISH14[edit]

how to fix this error An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. AMISH14 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AMISH14, I have declined your draft as it is not written in an encyclopaedic way at all: it is full of language that is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also your mentor here on Wikipedia. You also must follow conflict-of-interest and paid editing disclosure policies, as they are required on Wikipedia. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 16:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Humphrey.Mulberry[edit]

Hello, I have updated the links, enlarged the submission with all secondary sources from notable media outlets. I have reviewed all his contemporaries at BBC Radio Manchester and believe Jsky's page is far more qualifying. Can you kindly approve or offer further specific guidance. Humphrey.Mulberry (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging the rejecting reviewer, @S0091. Qcne (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Humphrey.Mulberry I started a discussion at Draft talk:Jsky so join me there. (Stop giving me more work @Qcne, lol). S0091 (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
♥ Qcne (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 29 August 2023 review of submission by HikingManiac2010[edit]

I've asked for advice a couple times now, please have an admin/help desk person email me! Please!!! Thank you!! HikingManiac2010 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HikingManiac2010. Sorry no one has replied to your requests for help on your User Page.
Unfortunately your attempts at a draft have been rejected. Musicians must pass the strict WP:NMUSIC threshold, and unfortunately Lynn does not pass that threshold.
Even if she did pass that threshold (she does not.) you have vast swathes of her biography completely unsourced. This is not permitted on Wikipedia, see WP:BLP. Every single statement should have been backed up by an independent and reliable source.
I'm afraid this is the end of the road: there will be no article on Wikipedia for Lynn at this time. Qcne (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I can provide more sources in my article in my Sandbox, can I resubmit the article later, if I cover all of the required parameters under WP:NMUSIC? Thank you! 2605:59C8:1C5:7800:E9E6:F5B5:DC6A:C5D3 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have accidentally logged yourself out, FYI.
Since it's been rejected, you'd have to appeal to the rejecting reviewers directly (@CNMall41 or @Theroadislong). Do that by posting a message on their User Talk page, or WP:Ping them. Qcne (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are VERY poor quality [1] is a single passing mention, [2] is a single passing mention and [3] appears to be user edited so not reliable. We need in-depth significant coverage in reliable, [[WP:IS|independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Aisamiscool8315[edit]

Can you publish my page into a article. the tv show is real Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aisamiscool8315. The answer is no, sorry. Wikipedia articles are only about topics that meet our strict WP:GNG requirements: you and your show do not meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not shout. Your page was deleted as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please very carefully read WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whats wrong with that?! Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for you to tell the world about your show. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>:( Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aisamiscool8315 I get that you're just a kid and so maybe don't have real world experience of Wikipedia: but this encyclopaedia is a serious project run by serious volunteers. We have strict guidelines - including behavioural guidelines. If you want to contribute not in a WP:SPAM-ey way, then great! Otherwise I'd recommend logging off and coming back when you are a little older. Qcne (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im only 12 years old. :( sorry for shouting. i wont be making articles for a while. if im 13 years old. i'll retrun. and if the tv show is popular in the future, publish my tv show article. Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i sometimes get some anger issues Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 29 August 2023 review of submission by Warezalex911[edit]

Hi, I'd like to know how to get this page over the line as I believe there are sufficient independent references for the page. Warezalex911 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers disagree with you, which is why they rejected the draft. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer.
You declared a COI with regards to Mr. Bird, what is the nature of it? 331dot (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_August_29&oldid=1173732413"