Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 21 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 23 >
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.


August 22

edit

03:17, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Charcot Cinq

edit

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and I do not understand the grounds on which my draft article has been declined: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

I've read all the guidelines. I believe the subject is notable as she has received significant coverage from independent sources as can be seen from the list of references.

I have made an enormous effort to use as many citations as possible to published, reliable, secondary sources (e.g. the BBC and Guardian) to verify the points in the article. If there are references which could be considered 'passing' it's where the subject is mentioned in a list of similar subjects (e.g. "Yin was named by The Evening Standard Magazine as one of the top tastemakers in the London food scene in June 2017.") which is unavoidable.

I also looked at published articles on similar subjects on Wikipedia to ensure I had a template to mirror when I started creating my article, and I believe the one I've put together exceeds in independent, good quality references compared to some of them.

Please could someone help by explaining in more specific detail the references which are not good enough by Wikipedia's standards?

Thank you. Charcot Cinq (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charcot Cinq: a quick scan through the sources suggests that they're mainly reviews of her book or restaurant, plus a few brief author profiles and similar, rather than significant coverage of herself as a person. So that I don't have to go through all 29 sources, can you tell me the 3-5 that you feel best meet the WP:GNG standard, ie. that are independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of her? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. Of the 29 sources I listed, I guess this one has the most significant coverage of herself as a person: https://www.greatbritishchefs.com/features/sambal-shiok-malaysian-laksa-mandy-yin. I didn't use the following two articles as citations but they also cover Yin as a person:
https://setthetables.com/mandy-yin-sambal-shiok-laksa-bar-london-cookbook-launch/
https://www.tatlerasia.com/dining/food/mandy-yin-sambal-shiok-cookbook-laksa-bar-london
I can add them to the references for the draft if you confirm that this is the right thing to do and will help get my article approved. Charcot Cinq (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charcot Cinq: the first GBC article is mostly a restaurant review, but yes, it does alongside that also cover her directly. I'm not sure the source is particularly reliable, with editorial oversight and fact-checking etc., but I can't say categorically that it's unreliable, either. The other two are her talking, so aren't independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, is the first one enough to go on? Or can it only be published once myself of other editors can add other coverage? Charcot Cinq (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charcot Cinq The personal life section is uncited, and shouldn't mention the name of her minor child(unless the child themselves merits an article). How do you know this information? 331dot (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a foodie, Malaysian food in London in particular and follow lots of Instagram accounts of restaurants and chefs I like, Yin/Sambal Shiok is one of them and she occasionally mentions her husband and son in her IG stories. I also have her cookbook and her family is mentioned by name in it. I shall remove the personal life section before resubmitting for review as it's true that it's uncited. I thought I had to include this info as other similar profiles on writer/chefs in Wikipedia had a 'personal life' section. Charcot Cinq (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be a personal life section if you have citeable information to go in it. It would be okay to cite her social media for the name of her husband(though the child's name would have to stay out, as indicated) but if that's the only piece of information that would be there, it doesn't need its own section.
Just to clarify, we don't have profiles here, we have articles. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, understood. Will remove the section. Charcot Cinq (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited and resubmitted for approval, could someone have a look at it please? Charcot Cinq (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

edit

The Little Z page was declined because YouTube was commonly in the sources. I was looking through some other articles, and a lot of similar people to Little Z have their respective pages filled with YouTube as the sources almost entirely, like Alpharad for example. I think it makes sense, as my claim that he makes videos on YouTube about smash bros where he did a certain thing, can be proved by the video on YouTube he made about smash bros where he did said certain thing. There aren't many articles being written about YouTube videos or obvious reasons, so it's difficult to find other sources for him. If anyone could give me advice, it would be very appreciated, thank you. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan: you can cite this person's YouTube videos when you're mentioning them, but you can't establish their notability by citing only their YouTube videos. In other words, you can't claim that this person is notable because they make YouTube videos, and as evidence of that, cite some YouTube videos they've made. No person or thing can establish their own notability, otherwise everything would be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's difficult to find sources other than YouTube videos connected with them, that should be taken as a sign that they may not be notable. As for Alpharad's article, there probably needs to be a bit of trimming there, too, but at least there's a good deal of sourcing that is independent and reliable. In any case, you can't rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there isn't enough interesting articles on him not for a lack of notability, but because there isn't much to say about subjects involving him, as he isn't controversial and is in Australia not America. He has several hundreds of millions of views without creating short-form content, and is considered a sort of celebrity compared when meeting people like Marss so is arguably more notable in that way, even though that's using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. I can go add more independent sourcing on him, because they do exist, I figured the page would be better without those though. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sourcing isn't just an option, it is the option, and is the very basis for how English Wikipedia works. Without independent sourcing, there's no meaningful source for anything to be written on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I'll go work on it. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

edit

Rejected a month ago today, but with a couple dozen sources (and most importantly, an above-average "Reception" section) to show for it. There is primary use of the topic's own material for refs, but as for the rest, I can't quite put a finger on it. Putting this literature draft up for reconsideration/review. (Filing on behalf of page creator StruMus (talk · contribs).) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case. On one hand, the majority of the citations are to the subject itself, or to Struwig's (who seems to be the author of this draft, also?) PhD thesis, neither of which helps us much. On the other hand, the first few sources listed in the bibliography suggest that this received plenty of serious attention in the 80s, which would seem to make it notable by definition. Due to the style of referencing, and with most sources being offline, this is tricky to rule in or out with any certainty. If I had to make the call, on the basis of "more likely than not to survive an AfD" I would probably release it into the wild and let the community deal with it as it sees fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @DoubleGrazing and @Slgrandson! Thanks for looking into this. The encyclopedia certainly got serious attention in the 1980s - both in South Africa and abroad, as you can see from the reception section. Most of the referenced sources are articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Because they date from the 1980s, some of them are unfortunately not yet digitised (older journals are often not digitised in South Africa due to a lack of funding/resources). In South Africa, the encyclopedia remains the only such large-scale publication on South African music and musicians. As a result, it is still being used by researchers today. Let me know if I need to change the referencing style in any way, but I can certainly vouch for the notability of the encyclopedia. StruMus (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 22 August 2024 review of submission by JonathanCarty410

edit

How can I make this submission acceptable? JonathanCarty410 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JonathanCarty410: this draft has been rejected already, you should not resubmit it.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO.
And regardless of that, every subject must be shown to be notable, in order to be accepted into the encyclopaedia. There is no evidence of notability here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Oceanview99

edit

I believe this page should be resubmitted, as there is a lot more on the subject person than one event. Besides national coverage of the subject, they are heavily involved in political campaigns and has substantial information released on his background as well. Oceanview99 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanview99: well, you're of course welcome to make a case for it, by appealing directly to the last (rejecting) reviewer. But you need a persuasive, policy-based argument for doing so, not just that you "believe". Although I add that when four different experienced reviewers think the draft doesn't demonstrate notability, there's probably a reason for that.
What is your relationship with this person? All of your edits to date have to do with this subject, and you uploaded a photo of him as your own work, meaning you must have been at close quarters at least on that occasion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Guilderbell

edit

Hello,

Immanuel Velikovsky has his own page on wiki. Charles Ginenthal took up the mantle of Velikovsky's ideas regarding science, cosmology and catastrophism. He has published many books regarding these topics and I feel you cannot have a full discussion on wiki and catastrophism in general without mentioning all the great work this man has done for this avenue of science. I know I am knew to editing wikipedia but I would greatly like to see Charles Ginenthal have a page that at least delves into the bibliography of his books and I am hoping that others with expertise on his books will be able to contribute to the page with knowledge of his theories, and scientific studies he did as well as his fierce defense of Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas. Guilderbell (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guilderbell: that shouldn't be a problem. You just need to support the draft with reliable sources (see WP:REFB for advice on referencing), and demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 22 August 2024 review of submission by 2600:100C:B30F:8B94:2858:A5A9:A6E6:E65E

edit

What can I do, to fix this submission? 2600:100C:B30F:8B94:2858:A5A9:A6E6:E65E (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The subject isn't notable enough to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. See WP:WHYNOGARAGE.. C F A 💬 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite Spotify (streaming website), Apple Music/iTunes (online storefront), or YouTube en generale (unknown provenance). Take those away, and you have zero sources, fatal for any draft and especially so for an article about a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Lvlyqtrn

edit

Why was this article rejected even though it was written using an objective point of view and with several existing and reliable sources according to the author Lvlyqtrn (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvlyqtrn: because there is no evidence of notability, the draft is purely promotional, and you seem to be collaborating with the other account working on this, Qatrin's page, and you probably both have a conflict of interest that you've not disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Lumberingreconnoitre

edit

The article was denied for not having reliable sources. I'm not sure I understand.

All sources I used are the original source of the information, except for the medium article. The 2b2t.org sources are reliable as that is the official blog of the 2b2t server.

My guess is maybe the youtube sources are not reliable ? For example I source a YouTube video for the digital drone delivery part under History as its the best source we have as the company has not released their code. Should I remove this section and resubmit ?

Thank you for the opportunity to resubmit. This is my first time making a whole wikipedia article and I want to write articles on lots of the smaller online businesses of MMOs. Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, YouTube is not a reliable source(as anyone can put anything on YouTube without editorial review and fact checking) unless the video is from a news outlet on its verified channel. Wikipedia doesn't want to know what this platform says about itself, as that is not an independent source.
Are you associated with this platform? 331dot (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the video has millions of views and is by a verified channel. i am not associated with 2b2t.shop. Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lumberingreconnoitre. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with 2b2t.shop sorry Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Inigo.novales

edit

I would like to know how long I have to make changes and resubmit this draft. I am hoping for a long extension, as I am waiting for the McGill Department of Physics to publish a list of MacDonald Professors of Physics and for Web of Science to correct some of RT Sharp's publications, which have been misattributed. Thanks. Inigo.novales (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limit on how long a draft may remain, except that if it is unedited for six months it may get deleted (and even then, you can ask for it to be restored).
You have submitted it for review - there is no way of telling whether it will get reviewed in minutes or months, as this depends on when one of the volunteer reviewers sees it and decided to pick it up and review it.
Whether or not the draft is accepted depends on whether it is adequately sourced by independent reliable sources: sources from his employer may be used to verify uncontroversial factual information such as dates, but do not contribute in any way to establishing notability. For a living person, every piece of information in the draft should be sourced.
Likewise, the presence or absence, or accuracy of attribution, of his works will not affect whether the draft is accepted (unless the draft misrepresents what is in the cited sources). You can continue to work on the draft while it is waiting for review, and (if it is accepted) once it becomes an article. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 22 August 2024 review of submission by 67.6.204.10

edit

- So we can't read information from original album book, and type up the info for use in Wikipedia? - Nor use info from Discogs that is confirmed in the original album book? - I submitted INFO that correlated with original album book release, to help others who might be looking for the info. It took me a few hours. Tried to understand your system, but not worth it.

You can delete this page whenever you choose. No one can access it anyway.

THANKs! 67.6.204.10 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not what we do here, we summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've interpreted your comment as a deletion request; if you want it back to attempt to do as we need, I can restore it. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Vaqarmaz

edit

What are the reliable sources you are looking for in this article? Vaqarmaz (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB to learn how to add footnotes to articles. WP:RS explains reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Vaqarmaz

edit

Please tell us where we need to improve this article to publish. Could you please list the objections so we can correct them. Vaqarmaz (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_22&oldid=1242680065"