Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 5 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 7 >
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.


July 6[edit]

00:34:51, 6 July 2023 review of draft by Netshine2[edit]


I am unable to upload my images of the John Elden historical markers and grave-site. I took the images with my own camera, but I get back the error message: "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

and the image(s) fail to upload. Please help. Netshine2 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netshine2, I'm sorry but you will have to ask at the Wikimedia Commons helpdesk. Folly Mox (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After some experimentation, I found that resizing the image for fast download was causing the upload problem. The raw unmodified image from the camera uploaded to Commons OK. Mystery solved! Netshine2 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it! Folly Mox (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 6 July 2023 review of submission by WikiRacingEnjoyer[edit]

I want to publish a new wikipedia page of the current season's Red Bull Rookies Cup, but my draft has been declined two times. May I know the reason why? WikiRacingEnjoyer (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRacingEnjoyer I fixed your link, you need to have "Draft:" in the front of it. It is preferred to call the content of the encyclopedia articles, and not the broader term "page". The reasons for the decline have been left by reviewers at the top of your draft. Do you have specific questions about them? 331dot (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Sorry for my mistake there for writing "page" instead of "article," thanks for the correction. Also the article I meant was "Draft:2023 Red Bull MotoGP Rookies Cup", my bad. The reason at the article was, "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 2023 Red Bull MotoGP Rookies Cup. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you." What content do I need to add so that it can be accepted? WikiRacingEnjoyer (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are trying to write an article about the specific occurrence of the event; as noted below the reviews at the top, you need to have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this event in particular. All of your citations seem to be from the same source and just document results. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 6 July 2023 review of submission by 195.91.255.6[edit]

whether Russian-language sources are suitable in this case as reliable 195.91.255.6 (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, non-English sources are acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the relevant reliability etc. requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 6 July 2023 review of submission by DKOJHA93[edit]

Kindly let me know the exact reason why my draft was rejected. DKOJHA93 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator rejected your draft, meaning it won't be considered further. You'd have to ask them to know the exact reason, but, looking at the draft, which, besides being blatantly promotional and unfit for mainspace, provides no indication of notability. Sorry for all the commas. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 6 July 2023 review of submission by 212.60.83.161[edit]

New on Wikipedia and don't know how to set up pages. 212.60.83.161 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We call them articles, creating an article is the very hardest task on Wikipedia, it is usually advisable to get a few months editing practice first before attempting a new article. You only have one valid reference [1] I'm not sure what the rest are meant to be, take a look at WP:REFB for help. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 6 July 2023 review of submission by Qgrunklebert[edit]

Wondering if I could please get any more details on what I'm doing wrong. I've had a few articles declined at this point, and the other two could arguably not be notable enough, but Smith is very notable and I believe my sources are good, so I was wondering what could be improved upon for future articles. Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qgrunklebert almost all the sources are primary or not independent. For example, given he is on the board of Historica Canada, The Canadian Encyclopedia is not an independent source. The only usable source for notability is the Financial Post. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 6 July 2023 review of submission by Oasis2019[edit]

Hello, can some Wikipedia expert please review this article? Made the changes suggested. Draft:Chris von Christierson Thanks Oasis2019 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the blue button to submit for review, but before you do, please suggest how they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 6 July 2023 review of submission by LameMan33[edit]

It said it is not notable enough. Would a picture resolve this issue? LameMan33 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have no independent reliable sources to support the content of the draft. You have two references to Wikipedia articles, but you cannot use Wikipedia articles to cite other Wikipedia articles. (Perhaps you just meant to make a link, which may be done simply by placing the title of the target in double brackets). The draft was rejected, and won't be considered further. If you want to tell the world about your bike, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ill try again later. Thank you. LameMan33 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was on the news could it be considered notable. LameMan33 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LameMan33: sure, if you get a major newspaper and a TV network to run report on it, and maybe the Time magazine to publish a feature story, that's pretty much what constitutes notability around here. (Note that we would need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources... just so we're clear.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LameMan33. I think your draft article being rejected for "lack of notability" has probably confused you, as it makes you think you might be able to find sources that prove the subject is notable. Instead: your draft article should have been rejected as it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am afraid that a description of a random bike in Minnesota is not the basis for an encyclopaedia article.
As such, your draft article will never be accepted. Hope that clarifies. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could I make a different article about the model of the bike. Then in the article reference the "The Huffy bike in Holland, MI" in the new article? Would this meet the guide lines due to the fact it was mass produced. Like the "Flying Pigeon" PA-02? LameMan33 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LameMan33 Can I ask why you want to make a reference to "The Huffy Bike in Holland, MI"? What makes this bike so special? Qcne (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 6 July 2023 review of submission by SahilSam 007[edit]

I would like to know how the topic isn't valid for Wikipedia even though I have submitted references and no promotional language was used SahilSam 007 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SahilSam 007 the first four sources are the their website which is useless for notability and the others mostly emanate from them so also useless (profiles based on they say about themselves, events they sponsored, etc.). Even third party sources need to contain independent analysis, research, etc. about an organization and as much as you believe it is not promotional, it is. It is written like their website with peacock terms and a list of "stuff" they have done (also unsourced) rather than a neutral encyclopedia article summarizing what reliable sources have independently written about them. After three submissions, the draft is now rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:45, 6 July 2023 review of submission by JesseSeverson[edit]

Copyright status needed. Need to know what tags we need to include and where. JesseSeverson (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JesseSeverson best to ask at the Teahouse. This help desk is for drafts submitted to WP:AfC and logos/images/infoboxes do not help with establishing notability so those are more technical questions. S0091 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 6 July 2023 review of submission by LCBWikiEditor[edit]

Hello! I have edited one cited source and the facts attributed to it, as it may have been deemed as not independent of the article subject. I have also added many additional reputable news sources. I am still concerned about the article not being approved on resubmission; I was confident about it on the first go after carefully reading the guidelines. Can you suggest any next steps? LCBWikiEditor (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LCBWikiEditor Your sources are
  1. his podcast page
  2. an interview with him
  3. another interview with him
  4. a summary of his comments at a luncheon
  5. his comments in relation to a project he was involved with
  6. a story about an ethanol plant opening with comments from him as a government official
  7. another story about an economic project with comments from him in his capacity as a government official
  8. a story similar to the previous source
  9. another interview with him including comments about the same economic project, in his capacity as a government official
  10. a brief mention of him in a larger story
  11. a brief mention of him accepting a new position
  12. some comments from him as part of a larger story
  13. a brief mention of him
That's just the first column. From a glance the rest appear to be more of the same. Most of the sources are inappropriate for establishing notability either because they give him little coverage or they are associated with him(like an interview). None of these sources have significant, in depth coverage of him that shows how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, showing how sources see Mr. Quinn as significant/important/influential. From the sources, he seems a capable official but there is little discussion of his personal influence being instrumental in the activities. Every economic development director is supposed to develop the economy in their area. What do sources see to be particularly significant about Mr. Quinn doing so. Is he recognized as having particular skills? Unique strategies that others attempt to emulate? Projects that would not have happened if not for his influence? We don't want to know what he says about himself, we want to know what others say about him. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the decline. Next steps are to inform the person paying you to edit that they unfortunately do not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia and should wait for someone not editing for pay to create an article, which may or may not ever happen. This is an encyclopaedia. It is not a place to boost the image of a corporation or person. People with a conflict of interest and/or editing experience usually have a singular objective: get their desired article live on the project. At AFC, our singular goal is different. We want to ensure the articles published on Mainspace meet our notability and neutrality requirements. If notability was possible, I'd suggest improvements. I've accepted COI edits before after neutrality improvements; however, those subjects meet the notability guidelines. This subject does not. So, in my opinion, no amount of editing can make this article suitable for publication and it should be abandoned. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_6&oldid=1164941145"