Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 5 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 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.


May 6

edit

02:20, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Ruth Bader Yinzburg

edit

Hi, I was wondering how to turn the novel reviews and the long list of “best of the year” lists the novel mentioned in this article appears in into single footnotes that have a bulleted list of citations in them for readability purposes. So the footnote would say [1], and the linked citations would be bullet points for a series of reviews / a series of best book of the year lists. Thank you. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruth Bader Yinzburg: firstly, this is a question on general editing, not about the AfC process, therefore you should ask at the Teahouse or the general help desk. Secondly, I don't know that it's possible to do what (I think) you're describing; nor do I think it would be a good idea. And thirdly, reviews of a book this person wrote are arguably not all that relevant in a draft about the person, they belong rather in an article about the book. In any case, this draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, and as such matters don't have much or any bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, I suggest leaving this for now and seeing how the review (and the ongoing MfD discussion) goes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Sravanthi chekka

edit

I have published a page on Sales pitch on 4th may but it is rejected and it is saying that it is not suitable. What does it mean not suitable Sravanthi chekka (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sravanthi chekka: your draft   Courtesy link: User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox is a how-to-guide, which isn't something we publish here at Wikipedia.
Are you doing this as part of some sort of school or university assignment? We've seen a lot of drafts on similar subjects over the past few days. If so, I hate to tell you that your instructor has given you an impossible task! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 2003:E7:6705:A000:D594:3DDC:8B09:D41A

edit

Can anybody help. Is something wrong with the references? I cant find anymore references about this film festival from the past. All references are independent and not from the website of this film festival. I dont know exactly what is wrong? 2003:E7:6705:A000:D594:3DDC:8B09:D41A (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see significant coverage, directly of the event in question, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the source. This draft cites no such source, with the possible exception of the Taz article (and maybe the BZ one, at a pinch), which isn't enough. The rest of them are primary sources, apparent rehashes of material put out by the event organisers, non-reliable sources, and/or passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the references. There are two significant coverage from two different Film magazines in German (PRANKE Magazin and Gory News) AND two multiple secondary sources in newspaper (Berliner Zeitung, T.A.Z). I deleted the references from the einzweidrei.info because it is just about the organisator in person and it is not about the film festival. Tromaggot (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Ryry10 0

edit

I'm trying to write myself a biography as a musician named GOOD NGHT. My submission was declined for 'lacking reliable resources'. I don't understand how to resolve this issue and require support. Ryry10 0 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryry10 0: are you writing about yourself, or a personal acquaintance? If so, it's not enough to write what you know about the subject, you need to be summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about them, citing those sources against the information they have provided. Your draft has no such sources (or indeed, sources of any kind), and cannot therefore be accepted.
Also, the subject must be notable in Wikipedia terms to be published in the encyclopaedia. There is nothing in this draft to suggest that is the case.
And finally, if you are writing about yourself, don't - see WP:AUTOBIO for the reasons why. And if you're writing about a friend or family member, you have what's known as a conflict of interest (COI), which must be disclosed – see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 182.252.69.230

edit

Bangladeshi Journalist 182.252.69.230 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you have a question? Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Some of the information seems to be fabricated, as the sources do not seem to mention this person at all. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Diegoriccio98

edit

Hi, I would like to ask if the critical issues, written by the last reviewer of this draft, remain in this latest version. I would also like to ask you to promptly highlight the parts that still need improvement. Diegoriccio98 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diegoriccio98: the first thing that jumps at me is that although this draft is meant to be a biography, it veers heavily into chemistry. I would suggest sticking much more closely to the topic. By all means mention his work and research interests, but don't elaborate on them too much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing Thank you I was thinking the same. I am going to move same of the current content to some articles about chemistry. I am going to contact also the thematic project.--Diegoriccio98 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Shhrikantta

edit

Dear Wiki

My name is Shrikanta Jilla, I have authored 2 books and co-authored 1 book. Today, I had to send a reply.

Wiki; the "Draft:Reckoning with the Vector Axe- I", have been written by me and it was declined for third time today, Wiki; one thing I want to make clear that the information regarding the book was passed by me, and first of all I authored that book, if I give adequate information about my book, then who will give?, I request you to accept the draft, since the information in the draft is about "my" book, I have adequate proofs like: website, blog, fandom, alternative publishing platform info. ,I would like a response from you, hoping for early replies.

Thank You Regards Shrikanta Jilla Shhrikantta (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shhrikantta.
Your draft fails our notability criteria for books. Wikipedia is a collection of topics that we deem "notable" by our notability criteria and you have not proven your book is notable.
Your draft also contravenes our neutral point of view policy. Please note that promotion of any kind is prohibited on Wikipedia. I have therefore tagged your article for deletion.
I would recommend finding a social media website - not Wikipedia - to promote your book.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

edit

Can anybody help. Is something wrong with the references? I cant find anymore references about this film festival from the past. All references are independent and not from the website of this film festival. I dont know exactly what is wrong? Tromaggot (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered above; please do not duplicate postings. Please place further comments in that existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Wolfboy8989

edit

i wana rename my artical Wolfboy8989 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as a misuse of Wikipedia, this isn't a place for you to run a website allowing others to post materials. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Imoutofchoices

edit

I believe that this topic is reasonably notable, as it is a page on the ZH Wikipedia, however, the topic has been rejected for concerns of notability, and lack of citations, however, I have modeled the citations in a way that resembles other published articles, such as the Muse Dash and Arcaea articles. Pleasehelp. Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imoutofchoices Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, all with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others, especially in terms of notability. If this text is an acceptable article on the ZH Wikipedia, I suggest that you edit that version. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I did before was I took some of the sources of the ZH article and paraphrased the article, which is why there are some citations that are written in foreign languages Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imoutofchoices: Different Wikipediae have different standards for notability and the reliability of choices, and the English-language Wikipedia tends to be one of the strictest ones. At a glance (and discounting the Chinese-language sources; automated translaton with those is unreliable) the only sources you really have are app stores, content-free profiles, and a YouTube video from an unverified channel. None of these are helpful sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an example of a website that would be seen as reliable, as I said before, the Arcaea page has most of it's sources are App Stores and one actual article Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An independent game journalism website could be reliable, as long as it is fairly mainstream and the article is not being sponsored by Pigeon Games. Qcne (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing articles from a website called lakevalor, is that a reliable spot? I usually edit on a school chromebook, so I don't usually have access to these sites on a daily basis Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lake Valor is a Pokémon forum? If so no you cannot use Forums, sorry. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thank you! Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise is that 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.
The majority of sources - and all those used to establish notability - need to be wholly unconnected with the subject and its producers, distributors etc, as well as being reliable. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, a question that popped up is the reliability of foreign language citations, would those be useful for an English article? Imoutofchoices (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, assuming they otherwise meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS. We also accept offline sources, if cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you did find a "reliable website" we assess sources not primarily on the outlet that publishes the source but on the character of the source itself. Kotaku is an acceptable source in most circumstances; the issue you have here is that you linked to a profile for the game on Kotaku (as opposed to one of its game reviews or journalistic articles), which has pretty much no information that can be cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 67.183.4.58

edit

Can anyone provide more detail on why this submission was not accepted for publication? Here are the reasons I was given: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

I included 3 reliable primary sources (published books), I am independent of the subject, and the article is entirely dedicated to it (not just a passing mention). Thanks for any guidance you can provide! 67.183.4.58 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Remember to log in when posting. Your draft does little more than document the existence of this facility and describe its offerings; you instead need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this facility, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Crazytiger954

edit

Having difficulty understanding what this article is lacking. I have cited a source, made references to external sources and links. The latest response was this individual does not meet the criteria for a page. He's an accomplished musician and has appeared on a major TV shows and performed in bands with major artists. Furthermore, this individual has an approved page for Wikipedia-Norwegian which was the inspiration for creating a page for en.wikipedia (https://no.wiki.x.io/wiki/Al_Cheznovitz) Crazytiger954 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazytiger954 Please know that each language Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another.
You only have one source, and many unsourced claims. Every substantive claim about a living person must have a source, see WP:BLP. An article must summarize multiple sources. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the definition of a notable musician, which you must show he meets. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Suhashini2024

edit

Can you please let me know what needs to change for this to be accepted? Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suhashini2024: We can't accept text taken from elsewhere, and you have zero usable sources (all your sources have a connexion to the subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy response. On my end, it states the content is still being reviewed. Can you kindly confirm? The content inputted has not been copied from elsewhere, rather gathered information from multiple websites. Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted since as plagiarised and closely paraphrased from https://dornsife.usc.edu/profile/titus-galama/ . —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I just submitted a revised version. Kindly review and let me know if this is acceptable. Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't submitted anything, you just added content to the deleted draft's talk page, and that content is thoroughly promotional. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I believe I resubmitted. Kindly confirm and let me know if I havnt. Please let me know the steps. Thank you. Suhashini2024 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suhashini2024, in its current form, your draft is very poorly referenced and cannot be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I added citations. Hope I did a better job. Suhashini2024 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the exact same sources I called out as being unusable in the previous iteration of the draft, all of which were written on his behalf by organisations he has ties to.. Such sources are useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it and for the more rigourous sourcing requirements for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 23:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_6&oldid=1223420304"