Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 25 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 27 >
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 26[edit]

03:32, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Asdfpocifk[edit]

Please tell me how I can make this accpeted. Asdfpocifk (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asdfpocifk: The draft was rejected, meaning that you cannot re-submit it to AfC. Drafts that are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia have to be notable enough for inclusion. Cheers ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 26 December 2023 review of submission by 103.149.59.176[edit]

Seeking help to improve the draft 103.149.59.176 (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few things wrong with this draft, but you need to start by addressing the reason for the earlier decline, namely to demonstrate that the company is notable per WP:GNG.
If you are Vbhavanisankar, please log into your account when editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sure. thank you. It was me. I might have used a different device.@DoubleGrazing Vbhavanisankar (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:45, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Deviltakethehindmost[edit]

This is my first time writing a wiki page and I'd love some more direct help on what I can do to make this page better! I feel like I approached it as I would an argumentative essay because I'm honestly not sure how to write anything else Deviltakethehindmost (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deviltakethehindmost, FYI, your draft submission was declined, and the reason for the decline is provided in the grey box within the template. As you mentioned, this is your first article. I would suggest reading the Help:Your first article help page. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Jalal1370ahvaz[edit]

Hello Authentic sources were added for this article and we made some changes Jalal1370ahvaz (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalal1370ahvaz: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
And no, not one single useful source is being cited here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Pratik.S2005[edit]

I am trying my best, just I need someone to help me create a page about it. Pratik.S2005 (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: you'll need to be more specific; what exactly do you need help with?
This draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Notability is established through sourcing. Unless and until you can find better sources than are currently cited, there isn't much anyone else can do to help you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratik.S2005, the last reviewer suggested including it as a section under the Maharashtra Police article, as it is not sufficiently notable for a standalone page. However, there hasn't been improvement since that decline. I suggest improving it by adding sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. Once improved, you can submit it again for review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Pratik.S2005[edit]

I have added a strong Citation which is from the National Portal of India, i.e. Portal of Indian Government, I hope now it's perfect atleast to get the notability and authentication over it, if not let me know Pratik.S2005 (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for a reviewer to review your submission. It may take some time as there are hundreds of submissions awaiting review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratik.S2005: no it isn't "perfect", far from it. Primary sources and routine business reporting do not even contribute towards notability per WP:GNG, let alone be sufficient to establish it. Accordingly, I have declined this.
And please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the previous one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing, Pratik.S2005, is that a Wikipedia article is primarily a summary of what independent commentators have decided, on their own initiative, to publish about the subject: that's all.
An official report from his employers may help in a limited way, by supporting some uncontroversial factual information like places and dates, but cannot contribute to the "meat" of the article, and therefore cannot contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 26 December 2023 review of submission by HIRDYANSH1122[edit]

I am Making this wikipedia page for my school project HIRDYANSH1122 (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HIRDYANSH1122: arguably, you're not; this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Dfcy[edit]

Hello, I am having several issues with the rejection of this article. I would like to have some clarification as to how this is written in a promotional style. Furthermore, what the reviewer describes as "an MFA email conversation" is actually a published book. I am confused as to why they are not being helpful at all. Thank you for any thoughts on this. Dfcy (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just briefly adding to this, I appreciate the work of the reviewer and any feedback. Again, any thoughts on how this is written in a promotional style would be appreciated. Dfcy (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I suppose there is no more assistance then? Dfcy (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Netherzone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for the ping. Spoiler alert: I tend to be direct in these instances, and none of my comments are meant on a personal level towards the artist or article creator, they are solely about encyclopedia improvement.
The draft is written in a tone that comes across as both promotional and jargon-laden. WP is an encyclopedia not a web host, and much of the article belongs on his resume and on his personal website. There are a lot of issues with the sourcing. WP biographic articles are a summary of a person's life and a selection of career accomplishments that make them notable. All the collections should be removed if they cannot be reliably and independently sourced. There are claims that are not sourced, and claims that appear sourced but the reference does not back up the claim. For example this entire paragraph: Institutions at which Michael Just has taught include the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, Germany (2004-2006, with Daniel Buren), Goldsmiths, University of London, UK (2008, Teaching Assistant), Accademia di Belle Arti Napoli, Italy(2010), Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, USA (2012), Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, USA (2015), Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing, China (2017), China Academy of Art, School of Design and Innovation, Hangzhou, China (2020) and Hong Kong Baptist University, Academy of Visual Arts, Hong Kong SAR (2023–2024). This content has two references, but one citation does not even mention him, and the other is is unverifiable.
Promotional-seeming content includes the long Bibliography section and the subsections nested below that heading. This belongs on his website, rather than on WP. Choose a selection of the most important works, maybe 5 or 6 total, is the standard I usually use for artist's BLPs. Be selective! As to the jargon, I can't find anything in the source that cites these claims: The focus of his work revolves around the question of how art can facilitate new relationships and thus become a transformative force within society. This approach is explicitly post-anthropocentric and decolonial, envisioning artistic methods and models for the integration and coexistence of diverse forms of cognition and intelligence—both biological and technological—across various substrates and timescale., not even his name. This unsourced sentence, His work is primarily constituted through interdisciplinary collaboration and often falls within the realm of artistic research, understood as the communicability and applicability of insights gained systematically through artistic methods to various scientific disciplines. is a puffy way of saying he does artistic research like most artists, he collaborates with others in various fields.
Two questions for Dfcy: Where are you getting all this content coming from? What is your connection to the subject of the article? Netherzone (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is sourced to a used book seller website, we don't use commercial sites like that as reliable sources. Please see WP:RS for more information. It also does not mention his name at all. Sources (also called references or citations) must back up the claims and content, and must be verifiable. Please go through the citations you have used and make sure they actually back up the content. Verifiability is a key policy for the encyclopedia. See more here: WP:V. Also, thank you for disclosing on your user page that you were an employee of Michael Just. When an editor has a personal or financial connection to the subject it's very difficult to write from a neutral point of view because they have a conflict of interest. Please read and follow the guidance for Conflict of Interest editing here: WP:COI. Hope these links help to explain some of our unique guidelines and policies. It takes a while to learn how things work around here! Please don't be discouraged, Dfcy. Understand it may take a while for the draft to be in a publishable state. Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone thanks for the very helpful feedback. I was on the help chat for a while today which was helpful also. I have added the disclosure that I worked at the studio before, however I am not paid to edit. Rather I meant to do this as my first English article and then I have some more I am planning on writing but I would like to finish this one first. I will go through the draft again and revise. I might have some questions in the process. Thanks again for your help! Dfcy (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand, Dfcy, that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you copy that. It's surprising how this is easier said then done. Dfcy (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not easy writing an article from scratch. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works before they even try it. And it's even harder for somebody who is connected with the subject. What they basically have to do is to find the required independent reliable sources with significant coverage, then forget everything they know about the subject, and write an article based wholly on what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfcy, It is essential that the sources are not misrepresented; meaning they should specifically support the claim and not be embellished to say what you or Mr. Just want them to say. That is called original research, and WP has a policy against adding/writing facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. See: WP:OR. This is how we maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. Here are two examples (BTW, there are others):
  • Claim: Here, architecture and medicine overlap in light of social regeneration and repair. The July 5, 2022 calendar of events for Workshop 27 by Mr. Just does not mention medicine nor social regeneration and repair.[1]
  • Claim: The focus of his work revolves around the question of how art can facilitate new relationships and thus become a transformative force within society. This approach is explicitly post-anthropocentric and decolonial, envisioning artistic methods and models for the integration and coexistence of diverse forms of cognition and intelligence—both biological and technological—across various substrates and timescales. What the source actually says about Michael Just on page 18 of the embedded "Booklet" is simply his bio stating where he was born, where he went to school and that he is currently working on a PhD, and that he is an interdisciplinary artist working on art, design, science and technology in rural Austria.[2]
Where did all that other content come from? Editors can't just make things up or interpret the sources. All original research should be removed from the draft. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Tanish99[edit]

Please can you tell me in simplefied way what can I add into my article that can add my article on Wikipedia. Tanish99 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanish99: in a word, referencing. This is needed to demonstrate notability, and also to verify the information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like most new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create a new article without spending any time practising editing and learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.
Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, think, or believe about Gujjar (or what I know, think, or believe about him, or what any other random person on the internet knows, thinks, or believes about him). It is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to publish about in him reliable sources.
Also you have some peacock words in your draft: no Wikipedia article should ever use evaluative terms like "determination and resiliency", or "dedication and leadership" or "influence ... is undeniable", unless these are direct, attributed, quotations from commentators completely unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 26 December 2023 review of submission by ChadyWunna[edit]

Please link references to help my page get published 

ChadyWunna (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChadyWunna: the onus is on you as the draft author to find and cite sufficient sources.
Actually, more to the point, it is your job to cite those sources that have provided the information that you've included in the draft.
Also, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Ysultankpg[edit]

Why can't I add this page? Please elaborate on the reason for rejection. Ysultankpg (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysultankpg Wikipedia is not a LinkedIn or Facebook profile. It is an online encyclopaedia about notable topics. Does that answer the reason for the rejection? Qcne (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is completely unsourced. We want to know what published independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 26 December 2023 review of submission by 223.178.85.95[edit]

The split proposal has been left unanswered with no possible solution and the article is supposedly notable enough 223.178.85.95 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "unanswered", it looks to me like the discussion ended (although wasn't closed) with 'no consensus'. That being the case, and given that this draft was rejected already a while ago, I don't think this is an AfC matter any more. What is, therefore, your question to us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 26 December 2023 review of submission by 108.51.45.220[edit]

how to make it notable on Wikipedia. 108.51.45.220 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. Qcne (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Shroedingerskat[edit]

Hi Folks - this was rejected. I have updated sources, please let me know what I need to do to make this entry acceptable. Thanks! Shroedingerskat (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. Please read the advice left by the reviewer; that's what you need to do to address their concern. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 26 December 2023 review of submission by Doctoryusuf[edit]

Vv Doctoryusuf (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_26&oldid=1192905475"