Help desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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.

March 16

Administrators only? — 04:02:01, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Ajshul

Ajshul (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Greg Brockman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I tried to create the page, it wouldn't let me, informing me that only an administrator could create it. Thus, I created a draft; should I submit it through AfC, or through a different process (directly to administrators...?)?

Thanks! Ajshul ^<talk> 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ajshul: that's correct, that article has been repeatedly created and deleted, and consequently the name has been protected. You should submit it to AfC, which you have already done, so all you now need to do is wait for it to be reviewed. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for clarifying! Ajshul ^<talk> 12:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:58:45, 16 March 2023 review of submission by ShartingSophia

ShartingSophia (talk · contribs)

lookie here, im not sure how to ask a question but I hope im doing it right the steps confused me. I just recived the sad information that my article was declined for publishing because it was

" an attempt at humor." now.

LOOKIE HERE BUD. It was

' 'much'*' more than an attempt. In fact, it was the funniest piece of literature that has ever graced gods green earth. It is okay to decline my witting for being not serious and not factual but to insult my incredible work is insanity.

Thank you so much for

the fast response and I look foreard to (hopefully) another fast response[to my comment.

ShartingSophia (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? --bonadea contributions talk 06:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea, @331dot I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but this user's unblock request, which is spelled out on their Talk page User_talk:ShartingSophia, is vulgar and unnecessary. I'm not a shrinking violet, but... ugh. Could that be redacted? David10244 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @331dot. You said "I'm not sure what this is, but it isn't an unblock request". I wasn't sure how to summarize the issue, but you got it exactly right. David10244 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declination of my article

My article was move to draft. I want to publish it and contribute in wikipedia. Draft:Hartley Higher Secondary School Hartley High School (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hartley High School: yes it was moved, because it wasn't ready to be published. And then I discovered that it's also a flagrant copyvio, so I've requested speedy deletion.

And judging by your username, you clearly have a COI. Therefore I've posted a message on your talk page to help you address this. Please do so before any other editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will gather information from different website. If I gather information from website you call it a copyright and if I write a article base on what I has see in the school and places then you will Call it as No proof verification. What I will do now. Atlas don't delete it. Make it draft and when you get time you edit it. It is a famous School in Kolkata, india Hartley High School (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hartley High School:

Please don't open a new thread with each comment, just reply to the existing thread.

It's not just me "call[ing] it a copyright"; copyright violations are actually against the law, and if the draft is found to be a violation it will be deleted, no ifs no buts. (Please read and understand WP:CV.)

And please respond to the COI query on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:56, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Terry123jenkins

Terry123jenkins (talk · contribs)

I have had two submissions rejected, and both state that the proposed article reads like advertising for the John Lewis Partnership. It is difficult to write about this subject without mentioning John Lewis. I have no connection with the company beyond the fact that I was a guest soloist in the 1966 and 1967 opera productions at the start of my professional career. That is over 50 years ago.I came to write this article after chancing on a blog requesting details of past performances. So I assembled all the information - with help from the JL Heritage Department - and wrote the brief history submitted. I have no other interest in the matter. I consider that the information in my last submission was impartial and purely factual. Please advise where and what precise changes are needed. Terry123jenkins (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Terry123jenkins,

Thank you for contributing a draft on this topic, and thank you also for confirming you have no connection with the subject.

The first thing that strikes me is that the draft has quite a lot of content which isn't supported by referencing. This could be because you've simply not been thorough enough in adding citations. Or it could be that you've written what you know about the subject, as opposed to what independent and reliable secondary sources have published about it. At Wikipedia, we only summarise what such sources have said; ergo, if you cannot support a particular statement with a citation to a published source, then it shouldn't be included at all. With that in mind, my first advice is to ask you to go through everything in the draft, and either reference it, or remove it.

The second thing I noticed is that the structure and style of writing is not particularly encyclopaedic, but instead narrative. For example (and this is only that; one example), an article must have a lead section (which is not the same as a 'lede' in a newspaper), which introduces the subject, establishes context and describes why the subject is notable. Your draft has no lead section. While such stylistic matters are not why the draft was declined, ultimately these must be addressed before the article is fully ready. You may find this guidance useful in further developing the draft.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I am surprised you state the content is not supported by referencing. I considered that everything had a reference, although many of these are to newspaper articles. Generally, every production was reviewed in the major London newspapers and music journals, which are surely published sources. I will check to see what I have omitted. Terry123jenkins (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Terry123jenkins Let's take a sentence at random: "The first production took place in 1947, and the series continued virtually without a break until 1991." Where did that come from? Is it from reference number 2, which is three paragraphs down, with a heading in the middle? That's a long way between the information and the reference.

As the draft stands now, it looks like the first two paragraphs have zero references. You must show where all of the information came from. If one reference covers many sentences or paragraphs of material, you should ask for advice on how frequently to include a "ref" tag, so that it's clear to a reader (and a reviewer) what sources cover which info. David10244 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments puzzling. I understood that the opening preamble simply stated the facts of the subject, and these were justified, and expanded, with references in the second section.

I find, for instance, that the wikipedia entries for Colin Davis, Edward Downes, and Arthur Benjamin - all mentioned in the text - have no references in this part of their entries. Ralph Vaughan Williams just has a note about the pronunciation of his first name, and the entry for James Robertson doesn't even appear to follow current guide lines at all.

I am quite willing to add a reference to the first performance being in 1947, but it is difficult to give a reference for the final performance in 1991. It was not intended to be the last and, as I explain, the enterprise simply fizzled out.

You describe the style as narrative. I have written it in chronological order, which seems sensible. Is that narrative? You also state that the opening sentences should describe why the subject is notable. I consider that my opening sentence does just that.

I would be pleased to hear your further comments. Terry123jenkins (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Terry123jenkins Yes, please add a reference for the 1947 date, and references for the other statements in the same paragraph.

The rest looks like a reply to you, @DoubleGrazing. David10244 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, @David10244. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Terry123jenkins: I don't know if you read the guidance on the lead section to which I signposted you earlier, but as I was saying earlier, the lead needs to serve a number of purposes all at once, to allow the reader instantly grasp what the article is about. To give an idea of what we need to see, instead of starting with

During the second half of the 20th century, the annual operatic productions put on by the Music Society of the John Lewis Partnership were an important part of the London musical scene, and gave audiences an opportunity to see rare and unusual works. The society's achievements merited an entry in the 1964 and 1979 editions of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Opera.

... I would start with something like (and this is obviously just an example to illustrate my point):

The John Lewis Opera was a London-based private opera society associated with the John Lewis Partnership retail business, active from the late 1940s until 1991. It is notable for being [whatever reasons make it notable], and was considered the most [its claim to fame] of its time.^{[citation needed]}

This, in a couple of sentences, defines the subject and tells me why it matters.

As for your point about a chronological structure, this is obviously one perfectly sensible approach, especially when laying out a historical sequence of events, or the overall evolution of a subject over time. However, it may not be suitable for covering the entire article, as you may wish to consider some aspects of the subject outside of such a structure. In the case of an operatic society such as this, you might deploy a structure (arranged by section headings) comprising, for example:

Lead section
Background
History
Notable members
Notable performances
Legacy

Of these, I might expect to see the History section laid out chronologically (or possibly thematically, or both), and the Notable performances should also be similarly arranged (from oldest to newest), but the other sections would probably be better treated in some manner other than chronological.

I hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful comments. I hope to rewrite the article following your suggestions some time next week. Terry123jenkins (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:10, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Snehal Narkar

Snehal Narkar (talk · contribs)
- User talk:DJ UV india (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article is being deleted? DJ UV india is a notable person, i have attatched sources too please go through that once. He have remixed many popular songs which you can check on youtube which have 113k+ views. He have 10k+ followers on instagram. He is an famous artist in india so please go through my article and sources once again. THANK YOU :) Snehal Narkar (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snehal Narkar, you need reliable, independent sources (eg, newspaper articles). It doesn't matter how many youtube views someone has. -- asilvering (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:03, 16 March 2023 review of draft by PBTheIsland

PBTheIsland (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Howard Cox, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A page I created {Howard Cox, Jr.) was declined for notability reasons -- "No indication he's a notable businessman, philanthropist." I'm new and I was hoping to get guidance on how to improve the page. The subject is a leader in the venture capital industry, having led his firm's investments in more than 30 companies, is a past Chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, received the industry's lifetime achievement award and, with his four partners, received the 2003 Harvard Business School Alumni Achievement Award. He is involved with numerous philanthropies, having donated $20 million to the South Florida Science Museum in 2021 and $10 million to Harvard Business School in 2022. There are a number of other business and civic achievements as well. I would reach out to the administrator who issued the decline, but am not sure how to do so. I'd welcome any assistance you can provide. Many thanks! PBTheIsland (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PBTheIsland, notability isn't determined by what a person has done, but whether reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about what a person has done. To start, what you would need is independent, secondary sources saying things like "Cox is a leader in the venture capital industry". Are there (independent!) newspaper profiles on him? Have a look at the links in the grey box in the decline message for a deeper explanation. -- asilvering (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 16

Contents