Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 22 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 24 >
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 23[edit]

03:56, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Isntabelle[edit]

I can't get the page published. I can't find anything wrong with the sources I'm using and there are other pages of unreleased metro stations that are published so I'm confused on what I'm doing wrong. Isntabelle (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isntabelle: forget any other articles you may have seen; we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, but instead to existing policies and guidelines. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.)
Your draft cites only two sources, neither of which even mentions 'Greenbelt 2'. We need to see significant coverage of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.
Please also see WP:CRYSTALBALL about speculation on future events. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Jasmine767[edit]

please help me to improve the article and update to live Jasmine767 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasmine767: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Bluebird179[edit]

Please tell me why my article was turned down? I haven't finished it but have other people that know more that want to contribute so Ithought we would do it grafually. Is there something specific I need to change? Bluebird179 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluebird179: your draft was declined because it is completely unreferenced (and, by extension of that, lacks any evidence of notability).
If you hadn't finished, why did you submit it for review? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others are welcome to contribute to your draft, you may just need to tell them the title so they can find it. Content is not based on personal knowledge, but on what is documented in reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many people who are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. The absolutely first task in writing an article is to find substantial, reliable, independent sources about the subject. Then if you can't find any, you'll know not to spend any more time on this project.
If you can find sources, then the next task is to forget what you know about the subject and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio[edit]

As I have, as requested, merged two submissions, I ask for the deletion or withdrawal of "Draft:Baris_Tursun_2" as requested. Instead, please continue to review the draft "Draft:Baris Tursun". This draft contains all the corrections you requested.

Can I request this at this point or do I need to take further action? Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Bradley112358[edit]

Added references; do we need anything to publish the page? Bradley112358 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradley112358: the links listed in the 'References' section aren't really references, they're just links to external websites (and their home pages, at that, which is not very useful). Referencing needs to support the information in the article/draft, ie. when you make a statement, you hang onto it a reference to a specific source that actually verifies what you've said.
Also, please get into the habit of using the preferred method of inline citations and footnotes, as explained in WP:ILC. See WP:REFB for advice.
And finally, please do not include inline external links in the body text, as this is not allowed. Convert these to citations instead, where relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rookie, here.
Can you help me patch it up, or suggest a more active helper?
The information is a subject compilation that was penned by collecting of all the source material found on those sites. 75.97.241.141 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to be the author, no pride here. 75.97.241.141 (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bradley112358 / IP editor. Please follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which you might find easier to follow. It should be a fairly simple process of converting your external links to in-line citations, which will automatically generate a proper reference list. Qcne (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Kurt3449[edit]

Hello there - advice please re lacking significant coverage for Sallie Aprahamian. My research has returned no resources to verify Sallie in the way that the guidelines describe. And having corresponded with her she is unaware of anything more substantial.

Are there any other tactics or conditions that can be met to gain approval? It would seem a shame to not be able to link to a page about her from the other wiki pages that mention her.

Best wishes. Kurt3449 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry @Kurt3449, if there are no sources with significant coverage of Sallie which are both independent of her and reliable, then there can be no article at this time. Qcne (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to help. After quite the pot of coffee I've found a podcast recording of Sallie being interviewed at a Dr Who convention! [ https://radiofreeskaro.com/2020/02/15/radio-free-skaro-729-these-go-to-eleven/ , timecode 1:09:45]. I wonder, before I commit to editing, if you consider this appropriate for the criteria. Kurt3449 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry :( Interviews don't count towards notability as it's the subject talking about themselves. Qcne (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Kurt3449 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 83.173.205.85[edit]

Hi! The draft for the English version of the Bethlehem Mission Society was declined. I do not understand why, because it is the exact same content as on the German site. There, there are 26 very good references to back the content. Have a look: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionsgesellschaft_Bethlehem The Bethlehem Mission Society is a traditional religious society with a long history. You can find several articles about the Society in newspapers from all over the world. Please reconsider? Best 83.173.205.85 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia(and every other language Wikipedia) is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. If you believe that the sources you provided meet our standards of a reliable source, you may wish to discuss that with the reviewer directly- as they may not understand German in order to examine the sources. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add also that there appears to be quite a lot of unreferenced content in this draft, with entire paragraphs and sections even without a single citation, begging the obvious questions (that no reviewer or reader should ever have to ask) – where is all this information coming from, and how do we know it's true? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 23 January 2024 review of submission by AmitabhCS[edit]

Hi, Writing on a technical topic of your expertise? My draft was declined for the want of `independent' sources. There's a few tricky questions here: the topic is of a technical nature (a new result/algorithm in Computer Science). The citations/sources are all peer-reviewed high quality publications in the research area. I am an expert in the area (I am a University Professor) and co-author of many of these articles. The wiki article is not talking about myself in a personal capacity or making any subjective judgement. The question is what needs to be fixed to have it published? I could add other work as sources which does not have me as a co-author. Alternatively, I could even ask somebody who's not an author on these sources to write a wiki article on the same topic (Can they use the same title?). 

Please advise.

Regards. AmitabhCS (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmitabhCS: the core concept of notability, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, means that (and I quote from WP:GNG) "a topic is presumed [notable] when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The 'sources', in plural, is usually considered to mean three or more. One author writing in multiple publications is arguably just one source; therefore, in answer to your question, yes, it would help if we could see publications by other authors as well.
There is also the question of bias, as in does citing only or mainly one author, even if the papers are peer-reviewed, introduce a source bias into the article? I'm not necessarily saying that applies here, but I'm sure you will appreciate the inherent risks in person X writing an encyclopaedia article about a topic, and supporting it mostly with sources authored by... person X. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AmitabhCS I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Appreciate that. I suppose I do know of at least three publications which don't have any common author, so I could add that. Hopefully they adddress both your points. Please let me know if there are any other suggestions.
As a point of discussion, I understand your bias argument but I see it difficult to apply when you are quoting technical results (not assigning subjective value judgements) which are already verified (i.e. peer reviewed) by experts in the field. Of course, there could be a danger that the peer reviewed publcations are themselves poor (not in this case) so you could not rely on that process. AmitabhCS (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AmitabhCS: if memory serves, a certain Andrew Wakefield had a peer-reviewed paper published, in no lesser journal than The Lancet, showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism... I jest, of course. :)
The serious point I wanted to make, bias aside, is that notability at its heart demonstrates that the subject is being talked or written about widely enough to justify its inclusion in the 'pedia; hence the requirement for multiple reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Klavensky kly[edit]

The reason it’s Bcs I’m a semi pro soccer Everyone is looking for me in google, they can't find me, I just made this article so that if they search for me in google, they will find me pls make it article Klavensky kly (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Klavensky kly. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia isn't interested in helping people find you on Google. Qcne (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is only one possible input into Google. As Qcne notes, we are not concerned with search results or helping people find you, sorry. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Codumon[edit]

I have several third party sources from reputable journals (TechCrunch, SitePoint, GitHub's Official Blog). What else do I need to show notability? Codumon (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Codumon:
- TechCrunch is an unreliable source.
- Medium is an unreliable source.
- sitepoint works as an okay source.
- visualstudiomagazine works as an okay source.
- The GitHub Blog does not show notability.
- OpenCorporates is a database entry, does not show notability.
But the rest of your sources are either primary (from WakaTime directly i.e. their site or GitHub). If you can find reviews, discussions, analysis of the software in reputable tech magazines or websites let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google search and found these non-primary resources. Would they work?
- https://www.g2.com/products/wakatime/reviews
- https://tjtharrison.medium.com/track-your-coding-with-wakatime-f893bbf36e95
- https://perso.crans.org/besson/wakatime.en.html
- https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/888955/Codealike-vs-WakaTime
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6oWMHE9504
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_r_xbf-Yfk
- https://www.facebook.com/WIREDGermany/photos/pb.100070112490031.-2207520000/1358826247495612 Codumon (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Codumon in order:
- No, this is just random reviews.
- Perhaps - is TJT Harrison a subject-matter expert?
- As above.
- As above.
- No, this is a random video.
- No, this is a random video.
- Depends - you've linked to a Facebook page. Is there an article associated with this in WIRED Germany? Qcne (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps - is TJT Harrison a subject-matter expert?
TJT is in the industry, but I wouldn't call them a subject-matter expert.
- Depends - you've linked to a Facebook page. Is there an article associated with this in WIRED Germany?
There was a short article in a printed magazine, a mention/feature of tech companies in Germany. Codumon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Codumon You declared a COI, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created WakaTime Codumon (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:1C76:3507:4076:8EBF[edit]

My draft was repeatedly declined even when I tried to add multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources that substantially talk about Han. I know there still is something wrong... what kind of sources and how many would I need to add? (assuming they all would prove that this merits a Wikipedia article). I still think that Han merits its own wikipedia article the same way that Albert HUBO and Sophia do, but how would the article itself be good? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:1C76:3507:4076:8EBF (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is borderline. The first and last sources are primary, so they don't count. The Wired piece seems pretty solid. The Business Insider is normally not considered very reliable (per WP:BI), but on this occasion it's syndicating Reuters which may be okay. The third, AI Magazine, only provides a brief profile, which doesn't really add up to significant coverage. If you could find one more source that squarely meets the WP:GNG standard, that would probably be enough to get this over the line. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can find one more good source, I can resubmit and it would be a good article? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would CNET be reliable? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this article is in 2015. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:5D50:980:EC79:9137:B3E6:CEB8[edit]

Hi, I'm not understanding why this article was declined for lack of significant coverage based on the guidelines. I have charted on the Americana chart, won multiple national songwriting competitions, toured internationally at major venues and alongside numerous artists with wikipedia pages, and been written up in multiple national publications like USA Today, American Songwriter and the Wall Street Journal. Rather than pretend to be a third party, I admitted to being both the subject and submitter for the sake of transparency and did not include a single fact that was not backed up by objective sources not composed by myself or anyone I worked with. Please advise. Thank you. 2600:1700:5D50:980:EC79:9137:B3E6:CEB8 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft doesn't mention anything about your work charting from what I see. The reviewer opined that you might be notable as part of a duo but not as an individual. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly qualified to give advice, but also, by the fact that you're using first person, it appears that you are the subject. Before trying to create an article about yourself, please consider Wikipedia: an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user freely admitted they were the subject. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article closely and did everything I could to avoid writing the draft as anything but factual. There is an annotation on every piece of information and no language that expressed an opinion. I'm not sure I understand what more an indie artist is supposed to have in their history beyond 16 years of album releases and touring with national press, appearances on nationally syndicated radio shows like NPR Mountain Stage, inclusion on iTunes charting podcasts like Welcome to Night Vale, wins at national songwriting competitions, and multiple cross references on Wikipedia. At this point, having worked hard to learn the site and frankly enjoying creating this draft, I largely just want to understand what's missing. 2600:1700:5D50:980:EC79:9137:B3E6:CEB8 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 2A01:73C0:500:EF2D:29C0:6106:C3E5:A627[edit]

I'm not sure why my page wasn't accepted 2A01:73C0:500:EF2D:29C0:6106:C3E5:A627 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice. It has since been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review. Given that, do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1: Amazon. Selling books, not giving independent coverage of anything. Doesn't mention Halevi.
2. Discussion of the essay, but little coverage of Grunsfeld.
3. Selling books, and doesn't mention Halevi.
4. Doesn't mention Grunsfeld/Halevi
5. There is a passing mention of "Efraim Grunsfeld" (which is a combination of names that doesn't appear in the article, but is presumably the subject). Just a passing mention, no significant coverage.
6. Bad link
7. Doesn't mention Halevi.
8. Might be good: I haven't seen the text. But it doesn't sound from the title as if it contains an in-depth independent coverage of Halevi.
9. Passing mention, in a non-independent source
10. Unpublished (or at best self-published work).
With the possible exception of no 8, not one of these references contributes to establishing notability in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word.
The first task in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several sources that meet the golden rule: they are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you don't find such sources, then writing so much as a single word of an article is a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_23&oldid=1200203689"