Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 11 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 13 >
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.


December 12[edit]

04:32, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Cmfsumeetjain[edit]

What all changes should be made in my draft? so that it passes the review. Cmfsumeetjain (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jishnu Raghavan Alingkil[edit]

Not sure if this is a right place to ask, but i just accepted this draft which looked good enough to me, only to realise 5 minutes later about it's multiple recreations by the sockfarm. Am I right in accepting this article which according to me looks to pass WP: GNG? zoglophie•talk• 05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

previous recreation under Jishnu Raghavan.zoglophie•talk• 05:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Zoglophie. I am involved so wanted to bring you up to speed. You likely didn't see it because the SOCK farm attempted to create it under a different title (the actual title is locked from creation). You can see the thread at COIN here and the SPI here. I moved back to draftspace to keep SOCK from linking to dozens of other pages (less work to undo once they are blocked). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:49, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Vicky Kumar26[edit]

He was one of the notable actor in Malayalam Cinema. But he was passed away on 2016. acted more than 20 films including one tamil and one Hindi film. He was very popular for his first film Nammal Vicky Kumar26 (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See previous thread.
Draft deleted, user blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 12 December 2023 review of submission by DIYer2023[edit]

I have tried to find reliable sources but there are no available sources from books etc. about the alliance - I guess because it is still very young. I added all sources I could from the internet and was also able to find sources from the 'Handelsblatt' which is a highly reliable german source. But I am not able to find other sources - what am I supposed to do now? DIYer2023 (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYer2023: if you cannot find sufficient sources, then it isn't possible to create an article at this time. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable published sources have said. Hence, if there are no sources to summarise, there can be no article. This is pretty much the whole concept of notability in a nutshell. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources are sufficient and I summarised the articles, but they are from the companies website or press releases. In my understanding the, especially technical aspects, cannot be more reliable than the information from the company. However I of course did not add the marketing wordings etc from the company - only the hard facts about the alliance. Shouldn't that be ok and seen as a sufficient source? Thanks for the explanation. DIYer2023 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have little interest in what their own website says or what press releases say, we need independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIYer2023 This company is a German company; I don't know if you are German but if you are, this may be acceptable on the German Wikipedia, which is a separate project with different editors and policies. It just is not acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Thank you! But are german sources still ok here? As it is a german company DIYer2023 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources do not need to be in English, they need only be independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Shivin09[edit]

I want to create Gaurav Paswala draft how can i Shivin09 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivin09: what do you mean "create draft"? This has been created, back in October. And since then, declined several times, and finally rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes the draft has been created in October but may i create new one if old one gets delete? Shivin09 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the draft is rejected therefore i am asking for creating new one. If the draft has been rejected then please i request you delete the draft..cuz after delete someone can create new draft properly Shivin09 (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shivin09 Were you recruited here by the creator of the draft, or are you the creator of the draft with a different account? You seem to have created your account for the expressed purpose of editing this draft.
What can you do differently that the creator of the draft was not able to do? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No ! And i am here for create draft name Gaurav Paswala but just because of old one draft which was created by someone is rejected and just because of tht i am unable to create new draft therefore am asking you for delete draft. Can you? Shivin09 (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know it exists. How did you come to want to edit about this seemingly non-notable actor?
You didn't answer my question; what will you do differently that the creator of the draft didn't do? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will make perfect one and actor's films are gonaa release soon therefore i thought his Wikipedia article is necessary... Shivin09 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Gujarat and the actor is Gujarati therefore i know...and when i started to create his draft there wr already one rejected draft and that's why i ping you...hope you understand Shivin09 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not same usee..and yeah if i able to create new draft I'll create perfect one I've read all the guidelines from Wikipedia i read how to create article biography and therfore its my request please delete old draft..cuz after delete i will able to create new one  ! Thank you Shivin09 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still are not answering my question, and until you can, there is no pathway forward to creating a draft about this seemingly non-notable actor. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which question? Shivin09 (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will make better article draft thn old one..which will follow all the guideline of Wikipedia Shivin09 (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you what specifically you will do differently that the creator of the current draft did not do. I don't need you to promise you will follow all the guidelines, the creator of the draft thought they were doing that too, and they didn't. Again, what specifically will you do differently? 331dot (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will make proper Wikipedia article for him and in this the creator of draft failed their draft declined and rejected but mine will not ! I will make proper and notable! Thank you Shivin09 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shivin09: firstly, you have no right to ask a draft that someone created to be deleted, so you can drop that idea right now.
Secondly, and more to the point, this draft wasn't declined and eventually rejected because of who created/edited it, but because the subject was deemed non-notable. That is likely to be the outcome whoever creates a draft on this subject. You have no magical powers to fathom notability out of thin air, I assume? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you continue to refuse to answer my question, I will not be able to help you further. We need to know what specifically you will do differently in order to permit you to resubmit a draft on this topic(whether or not the existing one is deleted). 331dot (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer - Gaurav Paswala is an Indian actor who predominantly works in the Gujarati film industry. He made his debut with the horror film 6-5=2 (2014). Later, he acted in movies like Je Pan Kahish E Sachuj Kahish (2016) and. up! Zindagi (2017). And after also so many films and webseries . So his work is notable i think there would be an article of him and i just want to make it ! That's the difference Shivin09 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shivin09: that's no different to the previous attempt; that's just doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but just permit me to resubmit will make notable draft will make something different i have no words how to explain and what to say all i would say is its my request permit me to resubmit or create new one something new and different will come sure ! Shivin09 (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic has been rejected and will not be considered further until it can be shown what will be fundamentally different about a new attempt. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:06, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 212.63.102.230[edit]

HOW TO REFERENCE PRESS CLIPPINGS I have completed a submission for a new Wikipedia entry about renowned Spanish contemporary artist Francesca Marti, after making the various edits as suggested by various Wikipedia editors. I was asked for extra references. I provided those that were missing. The submission has been rejected on copyrights grounds because I have formatted the new links to press clippings incorrectly. Each is simply a photo of the relevant article as it was published. I want to know how I correctly insert references/links to the images of the different published articles/reviews in newspapers which prove each of the artist's exhibitions I mention. I have physically gathered the press clippings (beginning from 1990) with the name of the journal, date, author, etc. I don't have the URLs for these, but have made a separate photograph of each newspaper page, which I uploaded, providing all the relevant publication details. Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I don't wish the submission to be disqualified. Jetfoundation

Below is my previous query to the editors Thank you, I am sincerely confused about how to show newspaper articles published about artist Francesca Marti', when specifically referencing those exhibitions I mention in the proposed Wikipedia entry. These are all newspaper clippings beginning in 1990, which I have physically collected from archives over the past months - and since these clippings don't have URLs, I cannot provide these links. How should I submit these newspaper clippings correctly? I have received similar rejection notifications from several Wikipedia editors. Best Jetfoundation Jetfoundation (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) 212.63.102.230 (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You don't need to show us the clippings, but you need to properly reference them by providing sufficient information for someone to locate them, such as publication, author, publisher, publication date, page number, etc. See referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Grandeur123[edit]

The figure is not a politician but an activist. I note not all political activists on Wikipedia hold public offices such as: Greta Thunberg, Emma Gonz, Bryan Stevenson.

I believe Ashton Charvetto as an activist within the ALP is a worthy submission as he also has articles written about him and is an integral influential figure within student activism. Please review. Grandeur123 (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grandeur123 We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the target in double brackets, as I've done here; it keeps pages cleaner and doesn't lock readers into a particular version of Wikipedia that may differ from their preferred(mobile or desktop).
The draft was rejected, which typically means it will not be considered further. If you would like the reviewer to reconsider on the basis that the broader WP:BIO should be the guideline over the narrower WP:NPOLITICIAN, please discuss that with the reviewer directly. Personally I'm not seeing that this person passes WP:BIO either; no independent reliable sources with significant coverage are summarized in the draft; allusions are made to their beliefs but no discussion as to their specific influence or importance. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair advice. Noted. I appreciate your time. I will keep that in mind for any further edits. Grandeur123 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandeur123 I wasn't particularly clear in my rejection notice, sorry about that. But the person does not pass WP:NBASIC either. If you can prove notability under WP:NPERSON let me know on my User Talk Page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Md Maruf Hossain 1[edit]

Why this is rejected? Maruf (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Md Maruf Hossain 1: it hasn't been rejected, only declined; the reason is given in the decline notice posted on top of the draft as well as on your talk page. Namely, the draft presents no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Alesia stud[edit]

Hello! I wanted to add in article about Taro new section - pests and diseases, but I was told that 'The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Taro#Cultivation'. I agree to add it there - could you please tell me how could I do that? Thank you very much! Alesia stud (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 12 December 2023 review of submission by JackMorley23[edit]

Article declined Good afternoon,

I've just had a article declined however I'm wondering how I add the primary source into the changes in order for it to be accepted. I have multiple primary and secondary sources to add.

Thanks, JackMorley23 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackMorley23 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Primary sources do not contribute to notability(though they can be used for other purposes). You are welcome to add your secondary sources and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Usr TC17[edit]

Is it possible to change the name of a draft article? Because the entered title 'Tenderstories UK' is incorrect, it should just be called 'Tenderstories'. Can you help me? Usr TC17 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

checkY done. Qcne (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 12 December 2023 review of submission by EGrace1602[edit]

I need to change the draft name but I can't figure out how to do so. None of the wikipedia articles on making drafts or edits have been helpful. EGrace1602 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are renamed via the WP:MOVE feature. Qcne (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the specific title of a draft is not that important. The reviewer, if they accept the draft, will place it at the proper title(though a note on the draft talk page can help) 331dot (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 150.129.164.136[edit]

my artical is not submited 150.129.164.136 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I rejected your draft as there is no evidence Vimal meets our special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Did you have a specific question? Qcne (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 86.167.216.44[edit]

A Bare bones draft was declined despite well defined notability, and numerous secondary sources. (only 2 are required, and not a single event)

Can anyone help resolve the issue before I resubmit as the reason given is confusing.

Theres no point fleshing it out at this point with recent work, just the facts needed to publish.

Then it can be brought to good article status, picture etc.. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a new editor, I'd recommend you to read WP:YFA. It is easy to swiftly create a draft and submit it, but for it to become an article, there are many considerations in place. If the reviewer has declined it, please read what they said and improve your draft. Submitting without any improvements would likely coerce another reviewer to reject your draft. zoglophie•talk• 17:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "well defined" notability you speak of? The sources certainly don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well defined meaning, the references are above minimum requirements. Please can you be concise in exactly what is wrong with the references. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the rule that says two sources are enough to establish notability, as you seem to think.
And my point was that if you're asserting general notability per WP:GNG, that requires significant coverage in reliable and indepedent secondary sources, which this draft cites none of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree. There aren't enough sources to justify how notable this person is. I would recommend them reading the instructions and then trying again in a couple of days. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noob.
I just had a relay chat and they think one reference is good, so one more is required. There are four references and I disagree his publishers website is not a good enough source. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask, what are you basing all this on? It isn't up to you to define whether a source is "good enough", or how many sources are required. Several editors and reviewers are trying to tell you something, but you don't seem to be interested in their advice, you just know better.
As it stands, this draft is not ready to be published. Simple as that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further context: Talk:Royal Conservatoire of Scotland#Grae Cleugh (Protected Edit Request), User talk:Primefac#Grae Cleugh —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by "good enough". I disagree that Bloomsbury, his publishers website is not a valid reference, but a second reference at Doolee.com is added anyway, and they verify each other, in terms of facts. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jéské Couriano; I think that pretty much concludes this repartee. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 185.127.183.128[edit]

Hello. This is the first time that I contribute to Wikipedia. I don't know why my contribution. I would appreciate your support in helping me with this issue. 185.127.183.128 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is practically unreferenced, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Islandtime[edit]

Hi there, I have added many sources for this article, and I'm not sure how much more reliable you can get than IMDb, Amazon, Roku, Apple TV, Tubi, etc. all some of the biggest sites on the internet that reference the show. Yet it has been denied for lack of "reliable" sources. In addition, it mentions not being reliable because one of the sources is an interview with the creators, yet that is simply an additional source for a quote about the production of the show. I'm just confused how the references cited aren't sufficient. Islandtime (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Islandtime: just to be clear, this draft was declined for lack of evident notability, not for insufficient sources per se. Notability depends much more on the quality of the sources, than quantity. And 'quality' in turn doesn't just mean whether the publication or media outlet is reliable, but whether they have provided significant coverage of the subject. The WP:GNG general notability guideline requires multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. This draft cites no such source.
And yes, you certainly can get much more reliable than IMDb, Amazon, Roku, Apple TV, etc. IMDb is actually considered unreliable (see WP:IMDB), and the others are merely sales channels. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Ethanabelar[edit]

I believe that all of the details in this article are independently verified through my sources. My most recent submission was rejected for not having any changes to source inclusion; but I have provided several new resources, including articles, books, and web pages, that substantiate my writing about the Brooklyn Zen Center.

If this is still not enough, please let me know what additional changes I can make to have this page submitted. As a member of Brooklyn Zen Center, I wish for my entry to be without bias or intent to advertise. Thank you very much. Ethan Abelar 21:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ethanabelar: whether or not the contents are verifiable from the sources cited (which I can't comment on as I haven't checked), that's not the problem here. The problem is that the sources do not establish notability of the subject according to the WP:GNG notability guideline. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and fully independent of the subject. Arguably none of the sources cited in this draft meets that standard (with the possible exception of the Lion's Roar piece, but in any case it alone isn't enough). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please delete the duplicate of this draft from your user page, leaving only the COI disclosure there. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 December 2023 review of submission by CoryHReynolds[edit]

Hello, I am pretty new to Wikipedia. My first page was accepted. My second, on Nadja Tesich, was not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nadja_Tesich I did add 20 citations. Can you tell me where I went wrong? Do I need to shorten the entry so that everything is cited? I am so mad at myself -- I am hoping you can help! Thanks a lot. CoryHReynolds (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CoryHReynolds: although this person is long since dead and no longer covered by the WP:BLP rules, we still need to be able to verify the information, and the preferred way of providing for that is referencing by inline citations. And there aren't enough of them in this draft, with whole paragraphs entirely unreferenced. So yes, please do tell us where all that info is coming from, by adding many more citations throughout (or alternatively, by removing some of the unreferenced content, if you cannot support it with referencing).
Also, if you're citing a book, cite it in its own right using {{Cite book}}; don't 'cite' a bookseller selling that book.
Finally, bear in mind that IMDb is user-generated therefore generally not reliable, see WP:IMDB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DoubleGrazing! This clarifies the situation perfectly. I will put in some time and re-submit very soon. I didn't realize that IMDB was a bad source. No problem to cite the books. And I can shorten also. : ) CoryHReynolds (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again DoubleGrazing,
By any chance could you take a look at the draft page that was originally rejected and tell me if my new citations do the trick? I added about 20 more, doubling what I had already cited. If not, should I contact the Wiki Editor who rejected my original draft?
Draft:Nadja Tesich
The first page that I created was accepted right away by a "mentor" that I found by clicking a link. I'm still not sure how one goes about all of this, but I appreciate already any help that you can give as I learn.
Thanks, Cory CoryHReynolds (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DoubleGrazing,
By any chance could you take a look at the draft page that was originally rejected and tell me if my new citations do the trick? I added about 20 more, doubling what I had already cited. If not, should I contact the Wiki Editor who rejected my original draft?
Draft:Nadja Tesich
The first page that I created was accepted right away by a "mentor" that I found by clicking a link. I'm still not sure how one goes about all of this, but I appreciate already any help that you can give as I learn.
Thanks, Cory
CoryHReynolds (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CoryHReynolds:
We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help-desk, so the only way to really know whether the latest additions will "do the trick" is to resubmit the draft for another review.
That said, I do note that there is still quite a lot of unreferenced content, with a couple of paragraphs with no citations at all, and a couple where the few citations come early on leaving most of the paragraph unsupported. Some of the sources are also still less-than-reliable.
BTW, you may also want to take another look at the first ('lead') section, which doesn't quite conform to WP:MOSLEAD guidelines. Not that that's a decline reason, but a good lead is very important in helping a reviewer (and later, reader) understand the context and noteworthiness of the topic.
That's all I can really say based on a quick glance. A reviewer will go through it more thoroughly once you submit it again (by clicking that blue 'resubmit' button). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Iamhumaneditor[edit]

Are books considered reliable sources, given that they are published by professional educators? Iamhumaneditor (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamhumaneditor: depends on the book. Standard textbooks usually are, yes. I wouldn't take Harry Potter literally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_12&oldid=1190515640"