Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 7 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 9 >
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 8[edit]

10:17, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Officialaishu[edit]

My draft is declined because of of the reason “not supported by adequate reliable sources”. Can you please guide me in what ways I can improve this? I feel that I have provided enough external sources to news articles. Thank you! Officialaishu (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and brief mentions do not establish notability. There must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her, showing t how she is a notable actress or more broadly a notable person.
There is also much promotional language in the draft(mostly about her "passion"). The draft reads as if it was written by her publicist. If you have an association with her, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Lndnfr[edit]

hi I was given feedback on the citing on this draft. But when I go to try to edit it I'm not seeing the button to Edit at top of the window - please advise? Or is it Edit Source ? thank you Lndnfr (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lndnfr: as already advised in an earlier thread, 'edit source' is what you want. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Lndnfr (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lndnfr you could also try turning on the WP:VISUALEDITOR which may be easier. Qcne (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you will try this Lndnfr (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 8 October 2023 review of submission by DominusStella[edit]

Request about lack of Citation and rejection of article DominusStella (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DominusStella your article was not rejected, only declined. This means you can re-submit it for review.
Articles about geographic features need to pass WP:NGEO. When you first submitted you had zero sources, and the second decline was when you had a Google Maps source, which isn't permitted.
The draft has better sources now, other than #4 which looks to be a placeholder? You've also included two sources that appear to be offline books, so it will be harder for a reviewer to check them. Any chance of online articles instead? Qcne (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Astroveen[edit]

Hi, I am researching various notable people who contributed to Indian Astrology System. I am only curious on what sources are required to prove the notability of sri N V Raghava Chary. His work (Meena2 Stellar Astrology system) is being used by many astrologers for prediction. He revived Nadi Astrology system and was one of the pioneers in early 1930s and 40s to bring out this system. His son Sri N V R A Raja has established research foundation and propagated the astrology system to thousands of budding astrologers. Sri N V Raghava Chary has been mentioned by several astrologers in their work. Please let me know on how can I publish about him on Wikipedia. Astroveen (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Astroveen: given that astrology is pseudoscientific and doesn't come under any of the special notability guidelines, your only option for demonstrating notability is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage of this person in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. That pretty much rules out any source dealing in astrology. (You should also make sure that the contents are far better supported by citations than is the case now.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 8 October 2023 review of submission by KingTheD[edit]

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with the draft? User:Johannes Maximilian keeps declining it and he's being quite unhelpful. KingTheD (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KingTheD: of your 15 citations, 10 are to familysearch.org, which is not considered a reliable source. This has been pointed out in the decline comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you understand. The user generated content on family search are the trees and peoples profiles, not the records. One of those sources is an image of a newspaper, which is stored on family search, what am I supposed to do put it on Dropbox or something? And the other two sources are U.S. Census records again stored on family search. I used the records on family search because all the records on there are free, as opposed to something like ancestry or my heritage. Even Template:Cite United States census links to a family search record. KingTheD (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please look at the citations before you jump to any conclusions KingTheD (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source you're citing (familysearch.org) actually has content from a reliable source, then you should cite that reliable source, not familysearch.org. My point still stands: you're denigrating the original source by citing it via a non-reliable 'gateway'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the References section. NONE of them cite familysearch.org as a source, NONE KingTheD (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of these cite family search as a source?
  1. "Major John Irvin [Obituary]", Blossburg Advertiser, retrieved 2023-08-30
  2. " "John Irvin", United States census, 1880; Union Township, Tioga, Pennsylvania; page 18, line 2, Family History film 1255198. Retrieved on 2023-09-30..
  3. "John Irvin Obituary". The Canton Independent-Sentinel. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
  4. "John Irvin", United States census, 1860; Union Township, Tioga, Pennsylvania; page 1, line 39, Family History film 805187. Retrieved on 2023-09-30..
  5. Ward, Joseph R.C. History of the One Hundred and Sixth Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers, 2d Brigade, 2d Division, 2d Corps, 1861-1865. F. McManus, Jr. & Co. pp. 3, 20, 150, 196, 324, 327, 415, 416.
  6. "John Irvin Candidate for Sheriff". The Wellsboro Gazette Combined with Mansfield Advertiser. 1891-10-14. p. 3.
KingTheD (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be missing the point. Refs 1, 2 and 4 are cited via familysearch.org, regardless of what the ultimate source is. That automatically makes them flag up as non-reliable. Cite the original source instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Template:Cite United States census. If you click on Charles Jacobs it takes you to family search. But my article can't do that?
"Charles Jacobs", United States census, 1900; Orange, Cuyahoga, Ohio; roll T623 1261, page 4A, line 34, enumeration district 22, Family History film 1254075, National Archives film number T9-0075. Retrieved on 2008-09-10. KingTheD (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The example KingTheD (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the U.S. government recommends viewing census records on family search.
https://www.archives.gov/research/census/online-resources
Search Online
Tenth Census of the United States, 1880 (Microfilm Publication T9, Record Group 29)
Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1885  (Microfilm Publication T655, Record Group 29)
U.S. Federal Census - 1880 Schedules of Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent Classes
1880 Census Records for City of Pittsburgh
KingTheD (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either I don't know how to help you, or you don't want to be helped. Either way, I'm going to bow out now. Someone else will be along soon who can hopefully assist you better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand anything about government records or genealogy KingTheD (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying KingTheD (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong if you look at https://www.archives.gov/research/census/online-resources you will see that there are 1880 or 1860 records available in the national archive catalog, however if you click on the any of the censuses in the list it recommends family search and ancestry to view census records. As for the notability, do you not think a brevet major who fought in the civil war and was a county sheriff notable? KingTheD (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong do you think I have enough sources without the census records? If so I can try to find another copy of the obituary KingTheD (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's even mentioned in a book. KingTheD (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Would it be better if I linked the record through a paid service like ancestry.com? KingTheD (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ANCESTRY. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I removed the census records, is the obituary still a problem? KingTheD (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The obituary is fine, though I'm not seeing what makes Irvin notable? Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Brevet Major, he fought in the American civil war and was injured at Gettysburg, him and three of his brothers were in the same unit, which is quite rare, after the war he was elected sheriff of Tioga County, PA; which had a population of over 50,000 people, and he was captured by the confederates and escaped. KingTheD (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Is that notable enough? KingTheD (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are criteria for notability? Theroadislong (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 8 October 2023 review of submission by heartrondo[edit]

My draft has been declined for not having reliable sources. Do official websites by the respective companies not count? Should the sources be in English? I'm just lost on how to improve the page when I tried to put as many (reliable) references as I could. heartrondo (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For English Wikipedia the sources should probably be in English. KingTheD (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartrondo: no, sources don't have to be in English, as long as they otherwise meet the required standards of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting KingTheD (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly help youif you added more information to the citations than just links to websites in Asian langues KingTheD (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, @KingTheD, please don't give bad advice on the helpdesk. The references are formatted fine. Qcne (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry KingTheD (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Heartrondo. Articles about actors are written to the WP:NACTOR criteria. Criteria #1 is if the actor has had significant roles in multiple notable works. Looking through his works, he certainly does seem to be second billing in a lot of productions, but I am not sure if those productions are notable themselves.
As I am unsure about this, I've fallen back to the WP:NBASIC criteria which states people are notable if they've received significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. We have to discount most of your sources which are cast lists, so not independent. The two sources in your lead of the article are to the organisation representing him and one leads to Twitter. Neither can be used to establish the aforementioned notability.
Therefore I think he would fail WP:NBASIC too.
Hope that makes sense, and hopefully explains how you can improve it? Qcne (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the correct user @Heartsrondo Qcne (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks so much! I will try to improve the page. I would argue some of the productions are pretty notable, especially in Japan. Anyhow, I'll see what I can do. Thanks again! Heartsrondo (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they are notable enough for him to pass #1 of the WP:NACTOR criteria, then I would encourage you to submit it again for review, and perhaps add a comment to the top of the article. The Anglo-centric bias of Wikipedia means there probably isn't many reviewers with an intimate knowledge of Japanese theatre/TV.
However I would suggest finding some better sources to replace the first two: something secondary, independent of him, and reliable. Qcne (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! This has been really helpful, thank you! :] Heartsrondo (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Lj67luke[edit]

My page keeps getting rejected. What should I do? Lj67luke (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do. Rejected means it will not be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Pelaphus[edit]

Hello –

David Spencer here. I did not upload the initial entry on myself, but I am largely its author. I procrastinated for many years about making the entry; in part because of the requirements…though—and I mean this neutrally, not with any sense of entitlement—I had earned one, given my resume, credits, career and colleagues. But with more significant credits to follow (including a book that may in fact see print this week), it finally seemed silly not to make the effort.

I can’t say how thoroughly the entry inspector examined each and every reference, but I think the determination to decline is unfair. There are three principal reasons for this:

(1) Where credits are concerned, even though I could not always link to journalism or reportage, I at least always linked either to data sites that had collected their statistics independent of me, or to the publisher/distributor of the book or recording in question (also uploaded independent of any hands-on input). I contend that this is more than just a mention, but documentary evidence that these things exist as career benchmarks, over and above my personal sayso.

(2) Much reportage that once existed is not readily available on the web—if we mark my primary career as starting in 1984, that’s close to four decades—and *some* (though not all) of what still exists is inaccurate; either for simply misreported or representing opinion rather than fact. (Not incidentally, I only inserted references to reviews when the Wiki entry text itself cited reviews—never in support of straight data).

(3) I think the shows and books I’ve written, as well as the people with whom I’ve worked, all of which can be verified (and I believe have been, on my proposed Wiki page, both in inserted references and Wiki cross-links), create a self-evident context of qualification and legitimacy—especially if looked at cumulatively.

I am happy to make improvements—there are additional references I’m hoping to locate and insert—but the implicit suggestion that the entry needs its documentation assembled from scratch, that nothing linked is valid, or that neutral data documentation must conform with unyielding regidity to a content philosophy, seems restrictive to the ironic point of blocking the facts that make the case.

That said, I do understand the necessity for Wikipedia to hew to a general standard. But the answer isn’t always A or B; sometimes it’s C. Please reconsider…and if you feel the entry may yet be further validated, please work with me toward the use of resources the internet provides in this particular case; as well as reconsidering the evidence inherent in what’s been submitted so far.

Many thanks David Pelaphus (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pelaphus. I think the reason no one has replied to your topic in a few days is that you've written quite a long-winded message and we're all volunteers with a limited amount of time on our hands. I will, however, attempt to answer and explain the problems with your draft.
1) I cleaned up the formatting of your draft. Internal links don't need to be bold, and headings don't need bold or italics. It was quite hard to read.
2) It is fairly obvious that the draft has been written by you. It is full of casual meandering statements, nested parenthesis, random ellipses, written in an informal conversational style which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedic article. The article reads more like a blurb to your autobiography, or a press release statement. It will need fairly major copy-editing in order to comply with our written standard. It is difficult to write about yourself because it is very hard to stay neutral (there's a guideline on this problem here).
3) Articles about people need to show how the person passes the WP:NPERSON notability test, or in your case perhaps the more specific WP:NAUTHOR notability test. We would usually expect to be able to see in the first few sources if you pass these tests but I am not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Your first few sources are... awards, production credits, or brief mentions.
I actually think you may be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article written about you, but I think you need to really start from scratch and significantly cut down on the content. You firstly need to find multiple independent, secondary sources, that cover you in detail and provide interpretation, analysis, or discussion: then paraphrase their content and use that as the basis for the start of the draft. With that as a solid foundation, then you can build out your bibliography/credits as a brief, bullet pointed list. Unless the production you worked on is notable in itself, we don't need an entire paragraph discussing every single thing you worked on. Leave that to your memoirs. Finally keep in mind Wikipedia articles should be written in formal, factual, dispassionate tones. Have a read of the manual of style which explain in detail how to write for Wikipedia.
I hope that helps somewhat, and let me know if you have any questions either by replying here or on my User Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Cramso[edit]

I don't understand why my submission was declined. It's a piece of local history and a prominent ad-hoc landmark, so available sources were limited- but I stuck to ones with verifiable data. This is my first article, and I really tried to make it up to snuff both in its tone and in its sourcing. Cramso (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, the sources are limited, the topic likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was suggested for an article to me by Annie Rauwerda of the Depths of Wikipedia page at one of her live shows. I was able to come up with 8 total references, varying from local news articles to local historical societies' documents to court records. I was under the impression that that was enough documentation- am I wrong? Cramso (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Court records are primary sources and do not establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes). 331dot (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The calendar item page, explaining the case brought forth by the state is not a valid source when discussing why the state brought a case forward? Cramso (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh whoops, misunderstood your comment. I still struggle to understand how a local landmark of a major US city with multiple reliable sources speaking on it and its history (and many more unreliable or derivative) sources is not notable enough. Cramso (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the concern of the reviewer was that it isn't notable(or that would have been the decline message) but that the sources don't establish that. I would suggest that you ask the last reviewer directly for clarification. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Originalmichael[edit]

Not sure how to make this acceptable for approval. Specific non-generic examples can help? Originalmichael (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That draft is literally one paragraph. KingTheD (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do; after a decline, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the rejector of the draft, @Originalmichael. There was no evidence that Adel passed the WP:NBASIC criteria for people, as your only two sources were WP:PRIMARY. If you re-work the draft to an extent you believe it passes WP:NBASIC, ping me on my User Talk Page and I'll take another look. Qcne (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that is helpful. How many secondary sources at the minimum should there be? Originalmichael (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no definition other than "multiple", but I'd like to see three. Qcne (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I will find a third source. I will di out some interviews perhaps Originalmichael (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do not establish notability, as it is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an interview conducted by a journalist or an academic does that work? Originalmichael (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually an interview full stop is not enough to establish notability, but find one and give me the link and I'll have a look. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok I will see what I can find with thanks Originalmichael (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_8&oldid=1180101069"