Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 16 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 18 >
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.


October 17[edit]

00:18, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Mlauenstein[edit]

My submission was declined because the article it relates to was declined for different reasons. Is there a way I can make this a standalone list instead? Mlauenstein (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order for there to be a list article, you need an article about the underlying topic(the show) and a good reason as to why the episodes should be spun off as a separate article. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:19, 17 October 2023 review of submission by RishabhNaruka[edit]

The draft was declined. Could you please help me what changes I need to make before resubmission. RishabhNaruka (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RishabhNaruka: this draft was declined for lack of evident notability, so at a minimum you will need to provide sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. You will also need to reference the contents much better, as there are several paragraphs without a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:28, 17 October 2023 review of submission by JuanJose1994[edit]

This sports JuanJose1994 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JuanJose1994: that's not a question. And what you have in your sandbox is not a serious attempt at drafting an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:29, 17 October 2023 review of submission by JuanJose1994[edit]

Sy JuanJose1994 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JuanJose1994: you don't ask a question (again), but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Yahayakabir[edit]

Please my article was deleted because of wrong editing, if I want to reuse my content most especially my company name for a better edit hope it will not affect or being reject again? Yahayakabir (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yahayakabir: your draft was declined and deleted because it was promotional. I can see that you've also added promotional content about the same topic on your user pages. I would advise you to stop now, before you get blocked. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:18, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Irkashka[edit]

My draft was considered as an advertisement. I would like some help on what should I edit to pass this criteria successfully Irkashka (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Oasis2019[edit]

Hello, hope all is well. Can you please give me a rough idea of when the article I submitted for review in June about Chris Von Christiansen might be reviewed? Oasis2019 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oasis2019: it was reviewed, and declined, on June 24. It hasn't been resubmitted (and rightly so, as no edits have been made since to address the decline reasons), and therefore is not currently pending new review. So the short answer, as things stand, is: never. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Aha, you're probably referring to Draft:Chris von Christierson? (I thought you meant your sandbox draft, which is what you linked to in your question!) This draft is indeed awaiting review, but I cannot tell you when it will be reviewed, as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order.
For future reference, please don't submit two drafts on the same subject. This is totally unnecessary, and causes extra work and confusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the second draft. I'm not sure why it was resubmitted twice. I did the first time and was careful not to repeat the double entry with this. Can somebody else submit the sane draft, or that's also a "never"? Oasis2019 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oasis2019: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "Can somebody else submit the sane draft, or that's also a "never"?" -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Kartik7055[edit]

Whats the reason to declined my bio again and again please suggest my mistake. Kartik7055 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kartik7055: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. Any sort of promotion is not allowed, and additionally you should not be writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). Try LinkedIn etc. instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 17 October 2023 review of submission by SparrowsQuest[edit]

My submission was recently declined. The reviewer's comment was "Please don't cite unreliable journals." I am not sure which citations fall into this category, could you help me please? I am wondering if it may be that I referenced a couple of blogs (Times of Israel, American Thinker) which Schwartz has written for. I know that quoting from the blogs is unacceptable but from what I can understand of the guidelines, mentioning that the subject wrote for these blogs is not. If these are the problem areas then would they be corrected by removing the citations, or is it best to remove any mention of them at all? Or is the problem something else? Thank you for your assistance. SparrowsQuest (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SparrowsQuest: refs #6 and 8 (American Thinker) are flagged up as "generally unreliable"; additionally, 3 and 13 are considered predatory publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick and helpful response. I have made edits accordingly. If I may ask one more question, regarding the chapter that appears in "predatory publications" - I removed all but one citation (now number 11), which I've updated to show that the source of the citation is "via Scopus," which is a repository of peer-reviewed documents. Is this enough to qualify the citation as a reliable source, or is there a better way to convey that it has been indexed in Scopus? Thank you again for your assistance. SparrowsQuest (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SparrowsQuest the issues are larger than just the sources. First, do not cite anything Schwartz has written to support any claims other than he wrote something. I removed some of the text because the sources cited did not support the claims made. You must follow the neutral point of view and verifiabilty policies and the draft has major issues with both. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 17 October 2023 review of submission by ArzebajanRO[edit]

hello, I am would like to know why the article has been rejected, it seems to me a neutral article, not contrary to wikipedia rules. Why this article about such an interesting person, who is not only a smart guy but is even politically active, and who is becoming very popular and could become internationally known in the coming years, has been rejected. On wikipedia you easily can find other pages little known, and seem to be made only to advertise some people, and have been approved. This article was created to tell about a person, not just the goal he achieved ArzebajanRO (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArzebajanRO: Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself or your mates. If this person one day becomes "internationally known", then he will probably be featured in multiple secondary sources, and someone might then prepare a Wikipedia article about him by summarising what those sources have said. As for "other pages little known", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:02, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Abcfws2023[edit]

Would like some more insight into why the page was rejected. This is a real term we use and would like to provide users with a better explanation of what the term means and how to use it. Do we need to add more sources and/or citations to further prove the information is accurate and correct? Abcfws2023 (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things that were created one day. This term must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that document its use. See WP:NEOLOGISM. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcfws2023, Wikipedia is also not the place to host your next promotional PR piece. I have left a warning on your talkpage about your username and about using Wikipedia to promote. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Hamody Saif is back[edit]

I created pages please don’t delete my pages Hamody Saif is back (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another sock of User:Kokikoki2011. Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Shahab Uddin Sagor[edit]

Please approve my biography submission. 

Shahab Uddin Sagor (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shahab Uddin Sagor: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. If you want to tell the world about yourself or 'create a profile', try LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Nayak u mahen[edit]

why it rejected. Nayak u mahen (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". 331dot (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayak u mahen do not remove the decline and reject notices. Qcne (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:52, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Jyanjinyuan[edit]

My draft at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Thermal_equation_of_state_of_solids

has been revised. Could you please have a look to see If it meets the requirement for the neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, no original research, etc? Highly appreciate your help in any form.

Best regards,

Jinyuan Yan Jyanjinyuan (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 17 October 2023 review of submission by Fanofwikii[edit]

This article was published years ago someone with no experience updated the article and was also blocked by Wikipedia this article needs help for this article to be published again it’s the person reputation that is getting ruined Fanofwikii (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fanofwikii. Wikipedia is not to be used to promote someone's reputation. That is prohibited. This person does not meet our notability requirements now, and so will not be considered further. There is northing you can do. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir Fanofwikii (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 17 October 2023 review of submission by JuanJose1994[edit]

Sport JuanJose1994 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JuanJose1994 you submission is completely blank. That's why it has been declined. Nthep (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop messing around or you’ll get banned KingTheD (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_17&oldid=1181428353"