Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 22 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 24 >
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.


September 23

[edit]

03:23, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Tulssltutuu

[edit]

Check and confirm or tell me the page mistakes

Thanks Tulssltutuu (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tulssltutuu: declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Marianaa20624

[edit]

why my article is always rejected Marianaa20624 (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marianaa20624 because you have done nothing to prove how this person meets the WP:NPEOPLE criteria. Qcne (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is also written in a completely unacceptable tone for an encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how can i fix it Marianaa20624 (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marianaa20624 you cannot, the article has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is nothing you can do. Qcne (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Davomme

[edit]

Hello, I recently created an article titled "German Volunteer Corps", however, it was moved to a draft due to concerns over the lack of sources and incorrect grammar and punctuation. While I dispute the grammar and punctuation concerns, I absolutely agree and also understand the concerns over the lack of credible primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I am looking for potential guidance on how to improve my page to find more reliable sources to support its content as well as credibility.

Last night I spent some time archiving some sources that can be considered as primary on Telegram, while Telegram is not necessarily a reliable source it is indeed a primary source due to the nature of the article discussing the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Telegram is a popular channel amongst units in the ongoing conflict due to the fact that it is encrypted and safe for releasing videos and activities by specific units.

I understand the limitations of Telegram as any individual could potentially pass off a persona impersonating a specific unit for whatever reasons in an attempt to spread misinformation, or stir trouble. Despite this, I would argue in this case due to the limited nature of secondary and tertiary sources being available on this subject Telegram sources are arguably useful in the fact that this unit has no other social media presence.

If this is not acceptable and will be ruled out, what other methods should I go to getting my article published? I have potentially considered cutting down on the information that is not verifiable or reliable, however, this would not allow readers to understand the background, motives, objectives, and activities of this formation which I believe to be crucial.

Any guidance that is given will be taken into account, and I appreciate any feedback or improvements that are provided to me. Thank you and have a good day. :) Davomme (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davomme sorry, it looks like what you're doing with your Telegram sources is what is known as WP:OR on Wikipedia - the aim when writing articles is to use only published secondary sources as much as possible. That's especially the case when it comes to things like the background, motives, etc. But I think you can pretty easily find secondary sources for that kind of thing, since the background and so forth is going to be very similar across other Ukraine volunteer units. Also, since the unit was not created that long ago, if you don't have enough secondary sources yet, you may find that more come up soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would it be much more suitable to either cross reference the motivations of a similar unit known as the Russian Volunteer Corps with this one? They are very similar, and cooperate with eachother considerably. Otherwise, would it be much more approrpriate to condense the page down into information that can be verified and then leave the other information in another daft and wait for more sources to come up soon enough?
Thank you for the assistance once again, I appreciate it. Have a good, day. Davomme (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Davomme: I think there's more to it than whether Telegram, being a primary source, can be used; it's also that what is being referenced here is the subject's own Telegram account, so it's the subject talking about themselves. And while that might be okay to support a limited amount of non-contentious factual information, it's not okay to relay on the subject's own output as the main source.
The other purpose that sources serve, besides verifying information, is of course to establish the notability of the subject, and for that close primary sources are completely useless. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Davomme Yes, condensing down to what can be verified is the way to go here. It's okay to use their own Telegram as a reference to verify something like "they said [blah]" (eg, if they post a manifesto, you can of course say "they posted a manifesto to Telegram on x date" and footnote their telegram), but much more than this and you end up either in "orignal research" territory or "laundered propaganda" territory. Or "free advertising" I guess, though with subject that's less of a concern. Of course, the draft might still be declined if you do that, for the reason DoubleGrazing mentioned: the topic needs to also be notable to exist as an article at all, and only secondary sources can establish that. If you don't find enough secondary sources to show notability, my advice is to hang onto this draft (in the hopes that sources will appear), and write a short section on this unit somewhere else where it would belong - an article on volunteer units or international soldiers in Ukraine, something like that. Then if/when the unit itself becomes notable, that section already exists to link back to this article you've already drafted. -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, I'll take what you have said into consideration and begin to condense it down into the verifiable content whenever I get the time. Additionally, thank you for clearing up any misconception of using Telegram. I will be sure to try and either divert away from just stating what the Telegram channel said or completely rule it out entirely.
Once again, appreciate the help. I wish you all the best. :) Davomme (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 23 September 2023 review of submission by RaviGadhesariyasurva

[edit]

add Company RaviGadhesariyasurva (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected it gives zero indication of passing WP:NCORP and you have not disclosed your connection/paid status. Theroadislong (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Engr.mohammadjannatulnayeem

[edit]

please i want advice why my requst is rejected. Engr.mohammadjannatulnayeem (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Engr.mohammadjannatulnayeem only people who pass the WP:NPEOPLE criteria may have articles written about them. Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Please see WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 23 September 2023 review of submission by NicholasNeborovsky

[edit]

Hi there, so I wanted to create a Wikipedia page for myself but it seems to have been declined, is there another reason why? I had put everything in the proper way. NicholasNeborovsky (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NicholasNeborovsky: it has been declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (those grey boxes inside the large pink one). Additionally, it is entirely unreferenced.
Also, please see WP:AUTOBIO for all the various reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Skmartists2017

[edit]

Article rejected Skmartists2017 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, @Skmartists2017. Did you have a question? Qcne (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What is the minimum threshold for a musician or film composer to be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Are there a specific number of public mentions, chart positions, a specific number of films scores needed? I'm looking for a quantifiable metric--an objective standard that needs to be met for inclusion. If you can provide be with numbers and specific sources that are necessary for inclusion, that would be appreciated. Nothing subjective, please. Thank you. Skmartists2017 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NSINGER for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Rahulparmarrajput

[edit]

Please help me that what was the mistake in my edit then I will fix it . Rahulparmarrajput (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are based on what published, reliable, independent sources have reported, you have none of those. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 23 September 2023 review of submission by CREATOR34566

[edit]

Why my article is rejected? I'm very unclear with the reason, as Priyanka Chakraborty is a singer, she needed to have her own Wikipedia article to ensure that she is that particular artist. CREATOR34566 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CREATOR34566: because, after multiple earlier declines, there was still no evidence of notability. Not to mention, the draft is very promotional in tone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CREATOR34566 please read WP:SPAMPAGE which explains why I rejected your draft. Qcne (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Blackspring103

[edit]

What further information would suffice to have this page approved? The website will be fully active next month and will hope to update once again when that happens if possible, thanks for your help. Blackspring103 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackspring103: this draft has been rejected andis pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_September_23&oldid=1178001988"