Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 12 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 14 >
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 13

[edit]

00:37, 13 August 2024 review of submission by LaurenLL

[edit]

Hello! I was told to disclose COI which I did on the Cory Grosser article talk page and on my user account. Now, how do I submit the DRAFT to AFC please? Thanks! LaurenLL (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cory Grosser has been submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined for reasons stated on the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 13 August 2024 review of submission by Rustberg

[edit]

I hired a company to create this Wikipage for me many months ago. It contains errors the company has not corrected in addition to sources that were declined. I would like to try a pass at doing this myself after carefully reading the suggested guidelines for citations. Before I do so, I want to know is it ok to work with this same doc or should I start a new one? Rustberg (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rustberg: Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Doing it clean may be the better option, especially if you're not familiar with assessing sources yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I assume it is a gradual process with several drafts? Or do people who read all the guidelines generally get it right in one pass? Rustberg (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustberg A paid editor should be capable of creating a draft that is acceptable after a maximum of two submission for review in my opinion. I hope you didn't pay the bill. Please also see WP:SCAM in case they were of that nature. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustberg: your paid editors should have disclosed that they were paid, but I don't see such a disclosure anywhere?
You also need to be aware that we strongly discourage autobiographies, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I heard that before about autobiographies. Nevertheless, all my colleagues have Wikipages and find them useful. I'm always asked why I don't have one. Rustberg (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rustberg Your colleagues don't "have" anything. Wikipedia has articles about them. We don't have "pages" here, we have articles. (an article is a page but not every page is an article). Also see other stuff exists- each draft or article is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet on this volunteer project.
To be very frank, Wikipedia has no interest in whether the subject of an article finds its presence to be useful- our only goal here is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, more specifically in this case, a a notable composer.
Be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually appreciate your reply and this information. I need to think about it. Thank you. Rustberg (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustberg: this may seem like a hair-splitting comment, but I'll make it anyway. Your colleagues don't have articles in Wikipedia (or 'Wikipages', as you put it). There may be articles about them in Wikipedia, but they are not 'theirs' in any sense of the word. The reason I make this distinction is so that you are aware from the outset that you have no control over this article once (if) it is published: anyone can edit it within our guidelines and policies, including adding information (appropriately referenced) that you might prefer not to be included there. This is one of the reasons why an article about you may not always be a good thing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out this distinction. And for pointing out that once published, I would have no voice in other people adding to it. I never noticed that as an issue in other composer pages, so it didn't occur to me. Rustberg (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustberg: without knowing what those other articles are, I can't investigate their provenance, but it's perfectly possible that they were created, and/or have been subsequently edited, by editors with conflicts of interest, who weren't aware of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. With nearly 7m articles, and more being constantly added, things do occasionally slip by us, and older articles in particular may have been created under altogether different rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:14, 13 August 2024 review of submission by TNM101

[edit]

I have a question. The article JSS Private School is approved by wikipedia, however, when I wanted to publish my article on JSS International School, it was declined. I took a look at the sources used in the JSS Private School article, and they are pretty much the same sources used by me. If the same sources establish notability for that article, why doesn't it for mine? TNM101 (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TNM101: thank you for flagging up JSS Private School. Its sources do not establish notability, and I have tagged it accordingly. (That article is over 10 years old, and may have been created when our review processes and/or notability requirements were more relaxed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so both the articles are not good enough for wikipedia right? TNM101 (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TNM101: that's right, at least on the face of it. The subtle difference is that, in order to be accepted, a draft needs to show that sources exist which prove notability. (Yours currently doesn't, and therefore has been declined.) Whereas for an article already existing in the encyclopaedia, where the current sources do not prove notability, in order to propose its deletion one must first carry out a search to see if more and better sources exist elsewhere, which could be used to establish notability. In other words, the burden of proof is reversed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the explanation and for giving your valuable time for answering my question TNM101 (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, @TNM101 I have not checked the draft. However I find the other worthy of discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSS Private School I do not believe that there is coverage to support retention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 13 August 2024 review of submission by 183.83.146.106

[edit]

while environment is a matter of great concern, there are not many writers in this realm. dr prithi has been doing considerable work and has all the merits to be known to a wider audience. 183.83.146.106 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing. That isn't a question – did you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that none of the no-doubt estimable things you say about Prithi above are of any direct relevance to Wikipedia. Notability is a fundamental concept in Wikipedia, and is different from any of fame, importance, popularity, influence, creativity, or innovation, though it often goes with some of those.
In short it is the answer to the question "Has enough independent reliably published material been published about the subject to base an article on?" Nothing written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates counts toward this, and nor does anything based on an interview or press release from the subject or their associates.
You should evaluate every source you are contemplating using against the triple criteria in WP:42. If it does not meet all three criteria, then it cannot contribute to establishing notability, and without notability, nobody can successfully write an article.
remember 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) 17:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 13 August 2024 review of submission by MGS98

[edit]

Hi

I am having trouble getting this accepted due to references. Is anyone able to help with getting this fixed so that it can be accepted?

Thank you! MGS98 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGS98: we need to see significant coverage (ie. beyond just passing mentions or routine business reporting) of the organisation, in multiple secondary sources. And then the draft needs to be essentially a summary of what such sources have said, not just what the organisation itself would like to say about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 13 August 2024 review of submission by Morganreale121

[edit]

I am not related to this subject matter I am learning how to edit on Wikipedia - I need to see what is allowed and not allowed to become a better editor - any help would be appreciated Morganreale121 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganreale121: Your only source is Wikipedia, which we cannot cite. No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morganreale121 You claim that you personally created the logo of the Group and personally own the copyright to it. Either you improperly claim the copyright of the logo or you are associated with this organization. Which is it? 331dot (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Morganreale121, if your goal is to learn how to edit, I suggest starting with much smaller and easier tasks - creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia!
You have a tutorial link on your talk page which would be a good place to start. You may also be interested in adding citations to articles, or seeing whether you can clarify confusing statements in articles. First of all, though, make sure to answer 331dot above. After that, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 17:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 13 August 2024 review of submission by 77.65.108.117

[edit]

Is the stuff in this artcle are alright? I mean. Do there's anything that I can this article? 77.65.108.117 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cite YouTube unless the video is produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight (such as The A.V. Club) and is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. LinkedIn is useless for notability. And your "references", even if they were usable, are malformatted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 13 August 2024 review of submission by Jackson Ettica

[edit]

It would mean so much to her, please could you tell me how I can improve it. Jackson Ettica (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackson Ettica: This draft has been rejected for failure to address reviewers' concerns and will not be examined further. We don't cite Facebook (no editorial oversight). We don't cite anything the subject has created or any entity they are directly involved with (connexion to subject). Anything a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced to a third-party, in-depth source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates it. We do not allow extended quotes from a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_13&oldid=1241052582"