Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 6 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 8 >
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 7[edit]

00:26, 7 December 2023 review of submission by LouieLumber[edit]

I'm confused, this person has White House press releases, Public Radio interviews, and has written laws signed by the Governor of Illinois.

What sources would be best to reference? Any help is appreciated! This is my first real article!

Thank you! LouieLumber (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LouieLumber, you may want to read WP:42 - which explains the standard for sources that confer notability. Essentially, you want 2-3 sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. For example, the first reference, a CBS article, is not in-depth, though it is reliable and probably independent. The second reference, the Illinois gov press release, is not in-depth nor independent, though it is reliable. Etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Gfs1234e[edit]

wiki page Gfs1234e (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfs1234e: that's not a question, and your draft isn't a viable article draft. What did you want to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 7 December 2023 review of submission by AnnaStoneG[edit]

Hi I recently edited this draft but my computer shut down. Is there any chance that you can see and send me the most recent version of this draft? I should be from yesterday or the day before that.

) AnnaStoneG (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: We can't see anything unless you save it. The most recent revision is from November 25. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank for answering so quickly :) AnnaStoneG (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Fine art at heart[edit]

Hi,

My article had been rejected, how can I clean up the copy so it is approved? Fine art at heart (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine art at heart It was declined, not rejected. In the draft submission process, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
The draft has several unsourced sections, some of which are highly promotional(especially the background section). Your first two sources are this establishment itself, which cannot be used to establish notability, that requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The independent sources provided only briefly mention this business, and one is an interview with its personnel, which is not independent. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rejected the draft, it is blatant advertising, with zero indication of notability and you have not declared your paid status despite repeated requests. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to delete this draft per G11 but admin conflicted with Seraphimblade. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Chris Mkhize[edit]

I am a musician and a film director and I need my page approved to be more credible Chris Mkhize (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mkhize Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career; Wikipedia cannot control if third parties use Wikipedia to confer credibility(they shouldn't). You only merit an article if you meet our criteria. See WP:AUTO and WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Jazzmonke[edit]

Hi, could you please tell me exactly why my article was not approved? is it because it is too long for an amateur artist? Please, I worked hard for this, tell me what i need to do to get this published. thanks alot Jazzmonke (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazzmonke: it's written in a promotional, non-encyclopaedic language; expressions like "captivating", "innate passion", "trajectory defined by unwavering dedication and artistic innovation", etc. are suitable for marketing collateral, but not for an encyclopaedia. Your job should be merely to describe, not promote, the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Text such as "Andy Penkow a multifaceted singer-songwriter with a captivating blend of country, Americana, alternative, and contemporary music, has emerged as a prominent figure in Australia's music landscape. Renowned for his evocative lyrics, soulful compositions, and distinctive vocal prowess, Penkow's musical journey spans an array of achievements, accolades, and chart-topping singles, solidifying his status as a revered artist within the Australian country music scene" is completely inappropriate prose for an encyclopedia article. Our essay on puffery has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understod, thanks for your feedback, I will make the neccesary changes and resubmit. Jazzmonke (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have managed to re-write it completely but still keep the inappropriate promotional tone...eg. Content like "Penkow is known for his dedication to music. His commitment to creating authentic, heartfelt music is reflected in his songwriting and performances. While much of his life is centered around music and his career, Outside his music, Penkow is passionate about health and fitness" is entirely promotional do you have a conflict of interest here by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jazzmonke You took a picture of Mr. Penkow and he posed for you- and it appears to be a professionally taken image. You must describe your connection with him. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot, Yes, this picture is indeed a professionally taken photograph directly sourced from Mr Andy, by personally reaching out to him. I have no direct relationship to Mr Andy, however he is in a music domain where I am familiar with since I have been a country music fan for a long time. I chose Mr. Andy Penkow to write my first wikipedia article since I am familiar with this music domain and I have followed Andy's work closely for a while. The reason for me to invest my time on writing this wikipedia article is so that I can become an active contributor and to add this as sort of a personal achievement for myself, to have contributed to wikipedia. I await your further feedback on how to abide by the rules and regulations and I am happy to make necessary changes to make this article in accordance with all requirements. please do let me know if i need to acquire a different picture, and any other comments are welcome. thanks. Jazzmonke (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jazzmonke: if you haven't taken that photo yourself, then you shouldn't have uploaded it as your 'own work', because it clearly isn't. And by the same token, I'm assuming you don't own the copyright to it, either, and therefore should not be releasing it into the public domain under the Creative Commons licence, which I expect the copyright owner wouldn't be too happy about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Abayan leo[edit]

Resubmission made after proper addition of citation. But targeted declining was made Abayan leo (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted with zero improvement (Times of India is not a reliable source) now rejected so will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
their blocked sock is asking for help on his user talk if you're so inclined @Theroadislong (I'm not). Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Science and such[edit]

A draft article has been (re)submitted because the first reviewer stated that the sources were not notable. Making careful use of Wikipedia notability guidelines, the following sources were added. Note: these are all stories whereby the subject of the article is the main featured subject: The New York Times The New York Times Magazine The New Yorker The Guardian The Telegraph The Times

This feedback was then returned: Unfortunately the approach taken since the first review has been to add unsourced material which is not notable. This does not help. For instance, being a research associate is certainly not notable.

ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Merlin_Sheldrake

So the question is: why are these sources (which are a small selection of the total) not notable?

Thank you 

Science and such (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Science and such, in order to count towards notability, sources must be reliable, independent, and in-depth. As such, any articles written by Sheldrake would not count, for example refs #6, #7, and #15, because they are not independent. Similarly, articles like refs #12 and #13 do not count, since they do not go into depth on Sheldrake. Etc. What are the three best sources that you have in the draft, according to these guidelines? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, to answer your question, the three "best" sources (most reputable?) according to these guidelines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/magazine/merlin-sheldrake-fungi.html
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-secrets-of-the-wood-wide-web
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/entangled-life-how-fungi-make-our-worlds-change-our-minds-and-shape-our-futures-merlin-sheldrake-review-8b9f3k65q Science and such (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sungodtemplean additional reference to answer your question:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/27/climate/climate-change-fungi.html Science and such (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a high-quality reference. The second one has too much interview to really count, maybe half a reference. The fourth one is only tangentially about Sheldrake and doesn't count. The third one is paywalled, so I cannot exactly tell, but based on the title, a book review, it might or might not count, based on the amount of author background it gives. If I were an Articles for Creation reviewer, I would decline the draft, but only barely. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Science and such: there's no such thing as 'notable sources'; notability is an attribute of the subject, not of the sources. You usually need to produce certain quality and quantity of sources to demonstrate notability, and in so doing some sources are 'better' then others (say, The Guardian trumps The Express, etc.). But even then, what the source says is just as important as what the source is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response(s).
Clear.
However, there are entire articles from notable sources which focus solely on the subject.
reference 4 is a complete article in The New Yorker solely about the subject
reference 8 is an entire piece in The New York Times Magazine entitled:
The Man Who Turned the World on to the Genius of Fungihttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/magazine/merlin-sheldrake-fungi.html
which is dedicated entirely to the subject at hand
reference 2 is from The Times and is a review solely addressing the subject's notability and expertise
I fail to see how these sources/ references do not qualify as Notable. Science and such (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question:
If I do not agree with the reviewer. I other words if I contend that these sources: The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The Times, and The New Yorker are reliable, independent, and in-depth, what is the next step? Science and such (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SUMMARY:
The Reviewer submitted this comment:
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced
However the person who is the subject of the article is the sole focus of multiple articles taken directly from the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for sources (generally reliable perennial sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources)
The sources (partial list) are:
1. The New York Times
2. The New York Times Magazine
3. The New Yorker
4. The Times
5. Time
Conclusion: these sources should adequately demonstrate that Notability guidelines are fulfilled by Reliable sources.
Question: is the (main) objection that a number of the articles referenced are written by the person who is the subject of the draft? There are also a number of academic research papers cited which were (also) written by the subject of the (draft) article.
Request: will the reviewer please address the issue of Notability taking these points into account?
Thank you Science and such (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 Science and such (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Science and such: I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you suggest; refs 2 and 4 are not really about the person, other than indirectly perhaps, although I agree that ref 8 certainly is. Without having done a thorough source analysis, I'd say this is probably borderline, in what comes to WP:GNG notability. Whether it would have a better chance of meeting some special notability (WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC?), I don't yet know.
In the meantime, there are a lot of other issues that need addressing, and I would suggest that you get on with those; they have been flagged up in the comments and with inline tags.
Also, what is your relationship with the subject? I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as relevant. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Mmalmborg30[edit]

Trying to figure out which specific part did not have sources? I included sources for all information. Mmalmborg30 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmalmborg30 To start, you have an incomplete section in the draft, the sources need to be reliable, and independent of the subject matter. Also, the sources need to go in depth about the subject. Also, see the comment on the draft for more info. Seawolf35 T--C 17:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have it fixed now Mmalmborg30 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Rodeco[edit]

Why was it declined? Everything I said was factual Rodeco (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cited no reliable sources and state M-1500 does not exist. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Visaru[edit]

Hello! I am trying to publish this new article and have been told that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. From my understanding of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), the article does meet two notability criteria for academics: “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level” and “The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research”. The sources I found for both of these are press releases, which to my understanding should count, since the guidelines say, “For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.” Could you help me understand why it doesn't meet the requirements? Do I need additional sources proving the notability of CUNY and The Fulbright program? Thanks! Visaru (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visaru I accepted the draft. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Elainekmixa[edit]

the page was refused for creation however, I have found wiki pages with businesses similar to TMS Digital in which the sources are skewed. Why can't a local company have a wikipedia page? why does it have to be a billion dollar company in order to have a wikipedia page? TMS Digital, (originally Tarheel Publishing) is Johnston County, NC's oldest privately owned advertising company. That should stand for something. Elainekmixa (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elainekmixa read WP:NCORP thoroughly. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elainekmixa Wikipedia is not a business directory of businesses that exist. There are criteria for inclusion(the aforementioned WP:NCORP). Being a "billion dollar company" is not one of the criteria.
See other stuff exists. These other articles(not "pages", which has a broader meaning) you have seen may also be inappropriate, and just not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. If you want to to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have independent reliable sources that discuss the importance of being the oldest advertising company in a particular county? There are thousands of counties in the United States. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your link. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Manushvalo[edit]

How can I re-submit this as an article? Please help, thanks. Manushvalo (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manushvalo you can click the blue resubmit button in the decline message but it will just be declined as you have cited no sources and nothing suggests the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. Most of it seems to be about father which is useless. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 7 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:18E:C380:7E0:75AA:4BA5:BF7:70A8[edit]

I wonder why a "a semi-active Indian Wikipedian" is qualified to reject an entry on a Canadian/American engineer who was a pioneer in computer design and has contributed significantly to the success of US national as well as international oceanographic research (see lists of Webb's awards and patents). Perhaps someone can advise on what the draft is missing. Does it need more references? a list of Webb's publications? Please help! 2601:18E:C380:7E0:75AA:4BA5:BF7:70A8 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they understand our guidelines and policies on WP:N, WP:V, and WP:ANYBIO. These guidelines have zero to do with locality of the subject. So I would recommend you read their advice and the links in my reply to better understand what is required. This approach above will not gain you any support here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_7&oldid=1189639042"