Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 April 6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 5 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 6

edit

01:01:44, 6 April 2021 review of draft by 1.136.110.76

edit


1.136.110.76 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.

Properly cite your sources and stop citing Google queries. If you're properly citing sources, as you should be doing for every single claim, then the question about invasion of privacy is irrelevant on the grounds of Wikipedia going solely off of what the sources say. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your childish rant is unlikely to get your article considered further. The reason the article draft has not be accepted is because it does not reference reliable secondary sources that establish the subject's notability. More than half of your references are Google searches. It is your responsibility to provide such sources, and you won't help your case by insulting Wikipedia and its volunteer editors. The link to the subject's LinkedIn page and exhaustive list of personal achievements also gives the draft a somewhat promotional tone. If you have a personal connection to the subject this must be declared, and promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia. It should be noted that attempting to add promotional content and then posting insulting rants when it is procedurally rejected will not reflect well on either you or the article subject. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this user is User:Ala.academics, the draft author, then this is a ban evade. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was written before the block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:57:24, 6 April 2021 review of submission by PhilCrusie2

edit


Hi, so latest edits are a big jump that makes it read clearer. Added some more on notoriety.

Fixed issues with links, by moving most of the extra links to an appendix for anyone that wants to dig deeper. This artist has so much global presence that I feel like there should be no confusion on their notoriety. I don't understand why no one was willing to look into the links because there are more than 7 UK publications and a feature in DNA Magazine, which is the largest gay magazine in Asia. This artist is from Austin, TX and has been covered extensively worldwide.

Hoping that this article will finally be published, because this has been so much work for me. It makes me sad that my writing is being criticized so much, when I was hoping it would be a more cooperative process. I haven't been on wikipedia's editing side in years and it used to be easy to post on here. Now it is very stressful and not much fun for me...

Can you please publish this article? There are too many sources for me to explicate on alone.

PhilCrusie2 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in "notoriety" it is notability we are looking for. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:03, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Fitedits0007788

edit


Fitedits0007788 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:03, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Fitedits0007788



hey, just wondering what are the changes I need to do on this?? thanks for helping out

== 04:42:03, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Fitedits0007788 ==,

@Fitedits0007788: add some reliable sources. Neither IMDB nor YouTube are reliable in this context, the same thing goe for instagram. All the YouTube links don't work for me, the format is either https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id or https://youtu.be/id. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:09:30, 6 April 2021 review of draft by HoustonAstrosFan97

edit


Hello, I need help on trying to get this page published. I don't know how to improve it to make it submit. Please help me. HoustonAstrosFan97 (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HoustonAstrosFan97 note the review comment by @KylieTastic and submit when you are confident that it passes Wikipedia:NGRIDIRON If it opasses then it will be accepted. If it fails then it will not. The draft is not currently submitted for review Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:36:13, 6 April 2021 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5

edit


2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:36:13, 6 April 2021 review of draft by 2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5 ==,

AlMaarefa University, Dirrea, Riyadh

Almaarefa University is located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It started in 2009 as a private higher educational institution.

Undergraduate programs being run are: Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing, Respiratory Care, Emergency Medical Services, Anesthesia, Information Systems, Computer Science & Industrial Engineering [1]

Almaarefa University logo.png

Contents 1 History 2 Program Offerings 3 See Also 4 References History In 2009, the university started as "Almaarefa College of Science and Technology" and by 2018, it was renamed "Almaarefa University"[2]

Almaarefa University Theater

Program Offerings Medicine & Surgery (MBBS). Clinical Pharmacy (Pharm.D.). Nursing (BScN). Respiratory Therapy (BScRC). Emergency Medicine (BSc). Health Information Systems. Anesthetic Technology (Anae). Information Systems (BSc). Computer Science (BSc). Industrial Engineering.

AlMaarefa University Campus

See also: List of universities in Saudi Arabia www.um.edu.sa/en

References [1] 

Adamu A Ahmed, "The new generation of indigenous private universities, University World News, 29 June 2019 . Retrieved 2019-07-01



2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5 (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a huge number of messages is counter-productive. The draft has been rejected. It will not be considered further unless oyu can persuade the rejecting reviewer to change their mind. From their comment this looks unlikely. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:36, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Gracetandeamara

edit


Gracetandeamara (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC) i still don't understand why my article was rejected. i am new to this.. so please help[reply]

It would be helpful if you let us know which draft (the name of your article/draft) has been rejected. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Félicité Niyitegeka was deleted because it had been abandoned (not edited for 6 months). Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:27, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Helen Wallimann

edit


I submitted my revised draft with additional references on 4 November 2020. Since the last refusal (by Kvng) was published on 21 October 2020, I imagine the revised draft was not received. What should I do? Helen Wallimann (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen Wallimann Welcome to the Helpdesk. There are currently over 5,000 drafts waiting for review so it can take up several months for a review. Your draft needs especially sources (Wikipedia:Inline citation) for the Awards being listed because right now the draft presents mainly coverage about his works (not himself) which is not sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:07, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Kalpanavgowda

edit


Kalpanavgowda (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does not reference any reliable secondary sources to establish subject notability, is written from a promotional perspective, and, as you are a member of the company, you have a clear conflict of interest, which means that even without the lack of sourcing and unencyclopaedic tone the article would be the subject of increased scrutiny. Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which covers notable topics supported by reliable secondary source coverage, and is not a venue for promoting business interests of any sort. See WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:SOURCE. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:22, 6 April 2021 review of draft by KhndzorUtogh

edit

Draft:Congressional Armenian Caucus

I was told to use more secondary sources/ I used too many primary sources. I'm honestly not too sure what a "primary source" is in this context, and how many secondary sources I need to use for this article to be approved. Could this be explained? Thanks.

KhndzorUtogh, some of the changes you made are much better. Primary sources in this context would be pulling directly from the caucus website. I would even be uneasy about referencing press releases from members of congress who are caucus members. Obviously sources from the caucus or its members think that the subject is notable, they are part of it! That being said, the AsBarez and ArmRadio sources are good secondary sources. Bkissin (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion @Bkissin: I added several more secondary sources. Now half of my sources are secondary sources. Is there anything else I need to do for my article to be approved? Thanks. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:01, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Nedrum

edit


Hello, I submitted an article for review, Draft: X-teens, and it was declined by AngusWOOF. AngusWOOF questioned the band's notability. Some discussion followed between me and AngusWOOF on AngusWOOF's Talk page. I provided additional information in support of the band's notability. AngusWOOF then replied, "please indicate that in the comments section of the article or the talk page so that other AFC reviewers can see it. Also you might want to ask Bkissin to review the article as it was considered close to being ready."

I have done as AngusWOOF suggested: I added information regarding the band's notability to the article's Talk page and left a message with Bkissin requesting a review. I have not heard anything more and just want to make sure there's nothing more I should do at this point, particularly since the article is still in the "Declined" state. Thank you

Nedrum (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:31, 6 April 2021 review of draft by USER888882231

edit


USER888882231 (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. In addition, merely playing for junior squads does not help his notability per WP:NFOOTY, especially as the subject is apparently still a minor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:37, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Bargainppe

edit


Bargainppe (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:49, 6 April 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:ABD7:C501:143E:A9BC:4CC7

edit


Can you please add more information and review? 2405:201:6:ABD7:C501:143E:A9BC:4CC7 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer run project, so if this individual is a subject you are interested in, it would make more sense for you to add more information before someone else reviewed it. But see WP:GNG first. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:10:37, 6 April 2021 review of submission by 64.30.247.61

edit

How is this denied when this former student of Attica was one of the communities greatest athletes to come out of this small town. 64.30.247.61 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@64.30.247.61: there is no criteria for notability "being the greatest athlete from a community". They have to have competed on a professional international level. Please review WP:ATHLETE for the threshold to be considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Please also remember every statement and fact should have a citation to a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_April_6&oldid=1017297977"