Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 19

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< November 18 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 20 >
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.


November 19

edit

02:34, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

edit

The draft character I submitted is a relatively popular figure, and there are many reports on her deeds, but I have been revising the draft and it has not been passed yet. I don’t know if the current data can be passed. In addition, I would like to ask about other things besides the reported data that can prove the popularity. In addition, are there any other methods that are more suitable for checking the popularity of a person or thing? Rosebabysu (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find sources that are reliable, that are independent of the subject, and that are providing significant coverage about the subject. I'd have to agree with the drafter feedback; this article is a very long way from passing Articles for Deletion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rosebabysu. Please note that the "popularity" of a person or thing has no direct connection with whether or not they are notable in Wikipedia's sense. There are many YouTubers (to take one example) who are popular, but because nobody has written about them in a reliable source, they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Conversely, there are many notable writers, politicians, engineers, etc who have never been "popular".
Notability is mostly about the answer to the question "Is there enough reliably published material available about this subject?", remembering 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. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Sethaw k.

edit

I would like to ask you about declined article that how will be able to resolve it Sethaw k. (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve the issues, you'd have to write the article based on sources that are reliable and independent and actually about the subject. Five of the eight sources aren't about the subject at all and he's only mentioned in passing in the form of being quoted about another subject. Of the other three, you have something written by the subject, not about the subject, his LinkedinPage, and a list of him as a speaker at an event. There's not a single usable source here. And even with sources, the tone of the article is blatantly promotional, to the extent that I'm wondering if there's an undisclosed WP:COI here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the promotional tone, and the fact that a photograph that you uploaded and called your "own work" also appears on the web page for the event hosting Naripthaphan as a speaker, you need to clarify any undisclosed conflict of interest you have with the subject. And if you didn't create the photograph, you either need to get the proper licensing for it or remove it as a violation of our fairly strict rules about copyright. This last part is something you need to take care of immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 19 November 2024 review of submission by AjinkyaKinetic

edit

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing with the recent speedy deletion nomination placed on the Wikipedia draft page titled Draft: Ajinkya_Firodia. The page was tagged under section G11, with the reasoning that it is promotional.

I understand the concern regarding promotional content and I fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all Wikipedia entries adhere to the platform's guidelines and policies. We are committed to revising the page to align with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and encyclopedic tone.

To address the issues raised, we will be undertaking the following changes:

Rewriting the content to remove any promotional language or biased claims. Adding verifiable, reliable sources to support the information, ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s notability and citation requirements. Reframing the article to focus on the subject’s factual contributions, achievements, and relevant information, in line with Wikipedia’s biographical guidelines. We kindly request that you consider reviewing the draft after these revisions are made, and we would appreciate the opportunity to revise the content in a manner that complies with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. If the draft is deleted, we would happily provide further information and request restoration if necessary. AjinkyaKinetic (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AjinkyaKinetic you can recreate the draft at any time, but if it is still promotional, it will be deleted again. Also, who's 'we'? Accounts should not be shared. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AjinkyaKinetic: I have little faith in your ability to re-write the draft when you're using a chatbot to post this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Interscope Web

edit

how to improve our draft Interscope Web (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Interscope Web: you have to demonstrate that the subject is notable; you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner; and you must cite your sources inline (see WP:ILC). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help us edit the draft to make it acceptable by wikipedia Interscope Web (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are here to advice, not co-write. The onus is on you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Interscope Web. You probably won't want to hear this, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 19 November 2024 review of submission by CSK1987

edit

Dear Team,

I have revised and enhanced the content in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Updates have been made to the Introduction, Early Life, Professional Journey, Establishment & Vision, Philanthropy & Social Contributions, and Awards & Recognition sections. Additionally, references have been corrected and added to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Please share your suggestions on which sections may need further rewriting or improvements.

Best regards, CSK CSK1987 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSK1987: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 19 November 2024 review of submission by MrAwesome1234

edit

Why did you remove it MrAwesome1234 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is located at User:MrAwesome1234/sandbox, but has been declined. qcne (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Kevsand04

edit

Hey! I saw that my English translation of the japanese article XYZ-1 was rejected. I am just wondering how I can get my translation accepted, when the original article doesn`t have any sources. This is my first time translating an article, so I really appreciate any help I get. Considering the lack of sources in the original, is there anything I can do to for my translation to be accepted? All the information I included came from the original japanese article. Thanks in advance for helping! Kevsand04 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kevsand04. Each Wikipedia language project is entirely separate and unaffiliated, with different policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable on this one. The English language Wikipedia project generally has the strictest notability, referencing, and content requirements of any of them.
Your draft has no sources and therefore wouldn't be accepted on the English Wikipedia. Please have a read of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. qcne (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fandom page you cited says "This information could be from an unnamed book, but the most plausible explanation is that someone created the Wikipedia article as a prank". Wikipedia doesn't host hoaxes. qcne (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiepdia has several articles about cryptids. Many of these can not be proven to actually exist. The article I translated is just like those; a cryptid that has reportedly been seen, but that can`t be confirmed. Kevsand04 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None the less, @Kevsand04, without sources an article cannot be accepted onto the English Wikipedia and your two sources (jp.wiki and fandom) are invalid. qcne (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kevsand04. Existence is not a requirement for notability: We have articles on unicorns and on the Loch Ness Monster because they have been written about in reliable sources.
If several independent reliable sources have written about your cryptid, then it may meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article is possible. If they haven't, then it isn't. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 19 November 2024 review of submission by 87.198.214.242

edit

I submitted the page and read the additional comments left by the reviewer. I edited the submission to address all issues raised and resubmitted it; after 5 months, I have yet to receive any comment, and the page still needs to be public. It requires more edits, or if not, why is it yet to be online? Thanks 87.198.214.242 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you only submitted it for review today? qcne (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No article "needs" to be here. What is the source of your need? 331dot (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 19 November 2024 review of submission by ZAKKALLU

edit

i am zakariya k abdulla . i create my biography . please accept that ZAKKALLU (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, @ZAKKALLU, you are not notable enough to merit an article. qcne (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZAKKALLU: please follow this link and read the information there: Wikipedia is not a platform where people can post their biography. Biographical articles in Wikipedia are summaries of information published by independent, reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

edit

Dear Wikipedia Community/Help Desk,

I am writing to seek assistance with creating a Wikipedia page for Reena Gupta. While I understand the stringent notability guidelines, I believe that Reena Gupta's significant contributions in politics, academia, business and environment to warrant a Wikipedia page.

I've noticed that individuals like Fahad Ahmed, a politician and student activist, have Wikipedia pages. While Reena Gupta

I have gathered reliable sources such as news articles, academic papers. I am unsure about the specific steps to proceed and would appreciate any guidance.

Thank you Jeswanth2 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have many sources, @Jeswanth2. Choose three, and only three, which all meet this criteria, and paste them here. qcne (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note, @Jeswanth2, you have already posted this question three other times and been given answers each time.
- October
- September
- July
Was there something you did not understand about the other times you were answered? qcne (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am sorry for asking repeatedly.
I see two sections here. Which sources are you referring to Reliable Sources or Independent Sources? So that I'll do more research and get back.
Thank you once again. Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for clarification, are you seeking to strengthen the reliable sources sesion or ensure the sources qualify as independent? I would appreciate if can help me understand this. Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this person or the apparatus of their political party? 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have an association with this person and their party's apparatus. Jeswanth2 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must always be reliable, otherwise they can't be used at all. Independent and secondary sources are required to show notability. In addition, there must be significant coverage of the person in the source. You are asked to point out three sources that meet all these criteria. Please look at the decline notice from 11 July on your user talk page, where this is explained. --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 19 November 2024 review of submission by 2607:F010:2E9:15:892F:3C4B:372C:C629

edit

Hi, thank you so much for reviewing! It would be great if I could get some detailed and structured advice on how to make the article less essay style and more like an encyclopedia. As currently, I'm citing all the credible published journal articles and am confused about what it means to take a neutral tone. Could you share some examples, like maybe one sentence from the article and one exemplar of how to make the adjustment? Thank you so much! 2607:F010:2E9:15:892F:3C4B:372C:C629 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion would be largely academic, as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article would need a fundamental rewrite to be accepted. The draft in its current form states opinion as fact, contains unsourced statements, and original analysis. Please review WP:No original research and try taking a look at other philosophy articles. Ca talk to me! 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_19&oldid=1259476088"