Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 10 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 12 >
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 11[edit]

02:12:40, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Rajasufyanali[edit]


Rajasufyanali (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasufyanali You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:57, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Roshanhadat[edit]


Roshanhadat (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roshanhadat You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resumes, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:24:38, 11 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by HenryCavillu[edit]


Hi I created my first Wikipedia article Draft: Abhishek Agarwal but I do not understand what I am doing wrong, My submission was first rejected due to lack of credible sources and when I added adequate references, it was rejected second time for the tone. Any support or suggestions are welcomed. Thank you.

HenryCavillu (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HenryCavillu Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do- an article about a producer must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable producer or more broadly a notable person. The key here is "significant coverage", which must go beyone merely documenting their activities and go into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the person. This cannot include things like interviews, press releases, or brief mentions. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was interesting insight., Thank you.
If I am getting this right, does that mean, His Production Studio "Abhishek Agarwal Arts", which has made big name for itself with controversial film The Kashmir Files is something that is in accordance with WP:Notability (notable producer) "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " and "4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"
Would you recommend that I create an article for his studio as that has better coverage than him as a producer? HenryCavillu (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HenryCavillu It can indeed sometimes be more productive to write about a company rather than its owner/boss. Evaluate your sources according to the notability standard for companies then decide if it will be a good use of your time and effort. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes Sense, Thank you @Dodger67 and @331dot HenryCavillu (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:16, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Ffreudenberg[edit]


Dear All,
Creation of this page has been rejected as it supposedly does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. According to the editor's comment for the page to accepted it needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

However, looking at the eight academic-specific criteria, I can at least identify three fitting criteria:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
This might be a bit of subjective criterion, but IMO having published more than 500 articles is bound to have a significant impact.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Several prestigious awards are indicated both on the nation and the international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
As indicated in the article, Andreas Reif is president-elect of the European_College_of_Neuropsychopharmacology meaning that in 2025 he will become president of the society (see https://www.ecnp.eu/about-ecnp/how-we-are-organised/executive-committee/announcement).

I believe that in particular the last point should be sufficient reason for this article to be created, as current and past-presidents of the European_College_of_Neuropsychopharmacology have a Wikipedia page and Andreas Reif is one of the few people mention in the ECNP Wikipedia article without an article.

I would be very grateful, if you could help me understand how to improve the article to get it accepted.

Kind regards,
Florian

Ffreudenberg (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Mattdaviesfsic. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EchidnaLives. Granted he does meet the award set of criteria (although, this doesn't always mean an article is worthy of being there). However, regarding your first point, I shouldn't have to research how they might have had an impact. The page I linked to (WP:NPROF) does say that it's irrelevant how much they have published; it's the effects and impact of those publications which are key (which you could emphasise if you wanted to before resubmitting. If you resubmit the article, however, given the other criteria, it would probably be accepted though. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the feedback. I will then resubmit the article. Ffreudenberg (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:40, 11 January 2023 review of draft by Catboy628[edit]


My article was not approved as they said I don't have enough supporting, but I have attached many of Ko Tsz Pun 's interviews and provided the films he directed, I even provided the informations of awards he got, I don't know why they said I didn't provided enough supporting to this director. Could you kindly help me, please? Thank you very much!

Catboy628 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catboy628 Interviews do not establish notability, because Wikipedia wants to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May be it is due to my writing is not good enough, actually this film director is being searched a lot lately outside of Hong Kong, he does has a notability, may be I try to re write a bit. thank you. Catboy628 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:51, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Fluffysandbox[edit]


Fluffysandbox (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


does this mean anything

@Fluffysandbox: Please read Blaze Wolf's comment. Use either the public sandbox or your personal sandbox for testing. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:17, 11 January 2023 review of draft by Greemble2[edit]


Submitted article was declined due to not having enough verifiable links. Yet there are three references used - one from the organisation itself, another from a separate, independent listing (not a blog) and the third from a UK Government appointed association. These seem verifiable and yet there are many other articles in the same category with no links or only one to their own site. Greemble2 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greemble2 An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The organization itself is a primary source and does not establish notability. The other two sources are brief mentions and also do not establish notability. We need sources that go into detail about what they see as significant or influential about the organization, not how it sees itself.
Please see other stuff exists. There are many inappropriate articles that we haven't addressed yet, this isn't a reason to add more. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greemble2 You could help us by listing those articles that have no references, or only references to their own sites. We can evaluate those and look for sources, or consider the articles for deletion if the subjects can't be shown to be notable. David10244 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole list here, most of which have no pages, either.
There's another list here. Again, many without linked pages.
If these lists are to be expanded, as they suggest, it might be worthwhile having pages to match the links. Greemble2 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:52:17, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Mohammadjoharin20[edit]


Mohammadjoharin20 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammadjoharin20 You didn't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_11&oldid=1134131436"