Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 16 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 18 >
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.


December 17

[edit]

01:14, 17 December 2024 review of submission by CloudyYT

[edit]

Why was my page rejected? CloudyYT (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:How to Stop Bleeding
@CloudyYT, this isn't Wikihow; we only have encyclopedic articles about notable topics, not life hacks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! CloudyYT (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:08, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C

[edit]

help me cite scorces please 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

besides this has so many rumours this must be real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not have articles about unsubstantiated rumors with no sources about something that may or may not exist yet. Until there are reliable sources that can verify the existence of such a product, or even the announcement of such a product, there will be no article about it because it is WP:TOOSOON for such an article to be written. cyberdog958Talk 07:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are scorces to cite alredy, and Draft:PlayStation 6 has scorces 2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I made it much better.2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources, now's the time. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for what? 2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said, for what?2603:8001:6940:2100:6985:378D:533D:4982 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources, tell us what they are. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not operatge off rumours, predictions, and innuendo. We need sources explicitly discussing the Switch's successor in concrete terms, whatever name it may be released under. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but it looks perfectly fine. 2603:8001:6940:2100:BB1F:907C:7F61:CA21 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think so means that you don't yet understand Wikipedia policies. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your only "good" source is the Polygon article, and even then that's almost entirely speculative in nature and thus useless as a source. It doesn't "look perfectly fine"; it looks like you're throwing darts at a picture on the wall while blindfolded and standing on a rotating turntable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well part of that polygon article connects to the "anouncced items" section of the draft making the citation kinda useful. 2603:8001:6940:2100:BC77:1C6D:706B:1BF9 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you have a functional crystal ball. Mine only shows "THIS SOURCE SUCKS, BEAVIS". As I said, the Polygon source is the only one approaching acceptable (one source by itself cannot support an article regardless of its quality) and most of it is literally just speculating on the Switch's successor, which makes it practically worthless as a source as a result. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already have scorces at the intro and the annouced items section. 2603:8001:6940:2100:E421:4051:5D3D:3A8A (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Belk3377

[edit]

Why was my article not accepted?

I have a master's degree in journalism from one of the best schools in the US and I've worked for many years as a researcher and archivist. I see every valid reason as to why Khaled should have a wikipedia page. I'm not a bot or a troll, just because my account is recent shouldn't discount me from making this page. This is also an extremely newsworthy time to make this page on the day of his passing and it can't afford to wait 30 days. Belk3377 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belk3377, this is not a news site. Your credentials hold no sway over the policies of the encyclopedia. There is no deadline if they are notable today then they will be notable tomorrow or they truly weren't notable. Now with all that being said these contentious subjects have these protections for a reason and for someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and such we have found to easier to maintain these protections. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belk3377: Given the extreme disruption in re the Arab-Israeli conflict that has warranted extremely draconian measures on top of a contentious topic designation in an effort to kerb it, I would strongly advise you to take ColinFine's advice below and work on areas of the encyclopaedia that are as far away from the conflict as possible, so that you can actually learn how Wikipedia works instead of becoming yet another victim in a long-running partisan warzone on Wikipedia. Areas under contentious topic designations do not suffer fools. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:17, 17 December 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. Even if you are an experienced journalist, writing for Wikipedia is very very different from journalism. It's also rather different from academic writing. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the header(it was backwards) and removed the url(not needed). 331dot (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 213.230.120.215

[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask for advice for this page about myself. I want ot publish it mainly because of the universities I am applying to and for the future use. I'll always update my info in this page if I'd publish it. Thanks for consideration. Hope to hear from you about weaknesses of this page. 213.230.120.215 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia on notable topics. Until several reliable sources have written about you, you are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, assuming you are Mirzayev07, please read what I posted to your user page. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Summerfieldnotion

[edit]

because I feel the person I am writing about has enough data on internet to be on wikipedia and I would like to request to approve it Summerfieldnotion (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerfieldnotion you had several chances to fix the issues and instesd you ignored the advice in the decline notices and continued to submit without improvement. If you read through the actual requirements and learn how to write an actual encyclopedia article with proper sources, you may be able to appeal to the reviewers to be allowed to resubmit. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the sources are places where people who are wholly unconnected with Almeida have chosen to publish significant coverage of him in places with a reputation for a strong editorial policy, then no. See WP:notability and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295

[edit]

The draft is exactly that, a draft, a stub that is intended to be worked on.

My understanding was that remaining in Draft allowed an article to be worked on in this way, before any request for publication.

Your reviewer's comment "This seems to be a cut and paste mess of a press release or something." is just plain bullshit. Fine if you don't know who the person is bugt keep your ignorance to yourself.

This makes me think not only should I stop using Wikipedia, given the piss weak editorial standards your reviewer displays, but I should stop contributing financially, too.

Really, I had expected better of Wikipedia.

Tell me I'm wrong. 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aren't gonna help your case. When you submitted the draft, it signaled that you thought it was ready for review. A decline isn't final, and you can still continue working on it, this time without submitting it prematurely. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your question – why a completely unreferenced, clearly unfinished draft was not accepted for publication? That's exactly why.
Whether you wish to continue using Wikipedia is entirely up to you. Whether you fund Wikimedia Foundation or not, ditto.
Keep the insults and foul language to yourself, though. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. The reviewer's comment was unjustified, ignorant and insulting. And deliberately so. I've managed editors, writers and publishers over 40 years, and that response is unjustified. If they were my employee, I would sack them.
How is someone supposed to put an article in draft for further development without pushing the Publish button? I wasn't requesting publication as is, I was putting a draft article in polace for further work.
How am I supposed to do that?
As for the intemperate language, control ypour reviewers' insults and you won't cop it. 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel bad for the editors you managed. "Publish" doesn't automatically submit the draft, you have to click a button to do that, and you did. The only person making insults is you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft wasn't reviewed because you "pushed the publish button", it was reviewed because you pushed the submit button. 'Submit', as in you submitted the draft for pre-publication review. If you don't want your drafts to be reviewed, don't submit them for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, it's still as clear as mud. No wonder Wikipedia is begging for help. Good luck! 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you donate to the Foundation or not is up to you- we editors don't see the money and have no way to confirm whether anyone has donated or not due to privacy. This is the time of year that the Foundation does a fundraising push, although their finances are stable at present.
This process is not for submitting stubs. Articles do not need to be complete to pass this process, but they do need to meet basic standards. If you want to create a stub(which does run the risk that deletion processes may be applied to it) you'll need to first create an account and then get autoconfirmed. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting a draft without any references is completely unacceptable. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject, and very little else. Start with the sources, then when you've got them, forget all you know about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say. Any other approach is at best difficult, and likely a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 17 December 2024 review of submission by David mullangi Ma

[edit]

I want to get acceptance of the above article David mullangi Ma (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David mullangi Ma the subject is not notable and has been rejected. The draft will not be considered further. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @David mullangi Ma. I'm afraid that most high schools do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article about them is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Joe John Michael

[edit]

Hi Joe John Michael (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe John Michael: do you have a question in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes My Film Draft Page Thirteen Heroes film Good No Bad Done Joe John Michael (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe John Michael: your draft is blank, apart from the infobox, and has no sources. It is pointless to keep submitting it, as it clearly isn't ready for publication.
Also, could you please stop posting the same stuff in pages where it doesn't belong. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 17 December 2024 review of submission by RenewQuantum

[edit]

I looked at the Wikipedia:Inline citation page again and removed anything that I could not source. Is this okay now or am I missing something? RenewQuantum (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything I could and I will resubmit. To the best of my knowledge, there are not any citations missing any more. RenewQuantum (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another point on the rejection: "14:22, 17 December 2024 Avgeekamfot talk contribs 7,495 bytes +85 Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements (AFCH)"
This person has died over 20 years ago, this is not a BLP. RenewQuantum (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Tpinon76

[edit]

Hi, I've done my best to simplify the entry. Can someone please inform me of what part specifically is a red flag that I can correct? I've tried to make the entry as bland as possible to be sure it is factual and not appear aggrandizing. Thanks in advance for any help possible. Tpinon76 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tpinon76 The COI notice you placed on the draft should go on your user page. What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
Large sections of the draft are unsourced(especially the personal section). The names of minor children(any children, really) should not be in the article unless the children merit articles themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

[edit]

Hello, if I may know what should be changed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines? MR Bang Jago (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. This person is not notable. See the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC

[edit]

I have twice had a draft Wikipedia article rejected because it is “not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopaedia article”. In my view, the text as it stands is fairly neutral - in any case, I can’t identify in what way the draft is not in the desired style.

How do I proceed? 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

[edit]

Excuse me, if I may know the references, why? In Indonesia, all references are accurate and all media are independent and fully supervised by the Press Council in the country of Indonesia, the quotes from every article that appears in this media have also been verified by the Press Council before being published to the public. MR Bang Jago (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MR Bang Jago: this draft wasn't rejected for verifiability reasons, but notability. There isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, in my opinion if it's about popularity I don't think it's necessary because his work has been nominated for film awards, and all of that has accurate evidence and through the Indonesian government as well, is my opinion not enough? MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MR Bang Jago: it isn't about popularity, it's about notability, as defined in the Wikipedia context. You would need to show that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or one of the special (WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, etc.) notability guidelines. Your or my opinion doesn't even come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are right, but I quoted from GNG that if you are famous, you must have a lot of independent news coverage, while he often gets independent news coverage in Indonesia, and in Indonesia the media is also verified and actual by the Press Council, so how could the media I attached not be independent. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also quoted from WP NAuthor, regarding creative professionals. according to number 3, he has received award nominations regarding very strict films organized by the Indonesian and Australian governments and independent media coverage in Indonesia, so if this should be able to appear on Wikipedia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the main issue, as has already been said. You haven't demonstrated notability. Please review the criteria DoubleGrazing informed you of and tell us which criteria they meet. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also quoted from WP NAuthor, regarding creative professionals. according to number 3, he has received award nominations regarding very strict films organized by the Indonesian and Australian governments and independent media coverage in Indonesia, so if this should be able to appear on Wikipedia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 of WP:NAUTHOR doesn't mention anything about award nominations. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that author I mentioned the movie, but after I checked earlier I found a more suitable one that is in WP NAuthor, namely the "Any Biography" section, I think it fulfills the category in number 1 that has received awards and nominations. and has contributed to the local government through his film. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I think it has met the criteria of 'Any Biography' which is nominated for an award, especially since this is an award from the bilateral relations between the two countries Indo - Australia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MR Bang Jago: the WP:FILMMAKER guideline does not explicitly mention awards as a criterion. In any case, the IWAFF awards do not appear to be notable enough to establish notability for their recipients, if that's what is being asserted here. And from the draft it seems that this person hasn't even won the award in question, they've only been nominated?
Fundamentally, someone who only started their filmmaking career this year, and who has only released one film, is highly unlikely to be notable, short of actually winning a Golden Globe or Oscar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm okay MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and I ask for help, if for example the writing tone is still not appropriate, please correct it because I am confused about the formal writing tone in question, I have tried as much as possible to write in a formal language style, I ask the management to tidy up the writing style, thank you for your attention. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
being nominated for a non notable award doesn't make them notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, even being nominated for a notable award doesn't grant notability in and of itself. If there were a critical mass of nominations for one's whole body of work, sure, but one nomination isn't enough to judge notability regardless of the prestige of the award. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Plausethereal

[edit]

How can I publish this draft so when I create a link to the sandbox it will immediately be seen because I'm not seeing any publishing button and I have created a link but when the page was opened using the link, it was said that no article was in my sandbox. Have I already published this article and also I do not want to resubmit it for review Plausethereal (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and welcome. As a result of the draft article being moved to its current title, the sandbox page is currently a redirect to the draft. You are free to remove the redirect from the sandbox page and otherwise edit it as you wish.
As for feedback on the draft, the cenotaph memorializing the crash of ADC Airlines Flight 086 is already mentioned in that article--I can't see that the cenotaph itself is sufficiently notable to merit an article independently from the one on the crash. Hope this helps. Feel free to clarify your question or ask further ones. Thanks, and happy editing. --Finngall talk 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

[edit]

How Do I Add Good References (The Mimic does not necessarily have good articles about it. It's mainly featured in "Best Horror Games to play Roblox") However, it has 1 billion views and is one of the most popular games on the Roblox platform, thanks to its utilization of Japanese culture, being very unique. MajorbucksYT (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many views it has, if there are no independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, there cannot be an article. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what would you consider a reliable source, like I need a brief summary.MajorbucksYT (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. For games, sources usually reviews written by professional reviewers/critics, or sources detailing the development of the game(see Super Mario Galaxy). You say "The Mimic is renowned for its exceptional graphics" but have no source for this claim. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Jaygopal Mandal 1969

[edit]

I want to know regarding uploaded my articles, which wrote in Bengali scripts. There was no provocation regarding religion. My all articles about analysis of literature. Please allow to upload and get a chance for review. Thanks. Jaygopal Mandal 1969 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, drafts need to be in English. You may submit Bengali drafts to the Bengali Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaygopal Mandal 1969: Courtesy link: Bengali Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_17&oldid=1264712275"