Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 3 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 5 >
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 4

[edit]

01:32, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Wikiwi019

[edit]

Hello,

I'm getting messages that my sources are not reliable, however they are real sources. I would like my page to be published shortly.

Would it be possible to help me?

Thanks a lot!

Best,

Wikiwi019 Wikiwi019 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered reading the wall of comments on your draft? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Wikiwi019. What you're missing 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. . Please read WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:27, 4 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:205C:7B0E:3CDF:E8FF:FEBD:D7B6

[edit]

Which notable sites are eligible 2409:40F4:205C:7B0E:3CDF:E8FF:FEBD:D7B6 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That question is a bit academic, since this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. But for future reference, in most cases we need to see sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. That calls for, among other things, reliable sources, and you will find advice on what constitutes one at WP:RS and WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 4 December 2024 review of submission by RJClark1447

[edit]

I have read and accept all the comments regarding my submission. However, on the basis of consistency: why is there so much (out of date, inaccurate) information about the Duckworth Lewis System and who wrote it? RJClark1447 (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJClark1447: you can see who contributed what to Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method by viewing the article's edit history. You can also see the shares of contribution here.
If the article contains out of date or inaccurate information, this is simply because it hasn't been updated or corrected. (Or possibly, some editors' views of what is correct and accurate differ from yours.) You are more than welcome to edit the article to improve it, supported by reliable sources of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Flight709

[edit]

This page was just declined. The reviewer said "The citations are not independent sources to claim notability." I would like a second opinion on this, because this reviewer was recently granted reviewing rights based on the message on his talk page, so he might be afraid to approve pages and trying not to make mistakes. I totally understand, he is trying to be super cautious.

However, this musician has several in-depth articles that are independent. The TJPL News article is a 2 page spread. The York Calling article is quite in-depth too etc. Testing Melodies article is also in-depth and independent. One of his bands has a book coverage here.

The artist also has several album reviews, such as in Rockera Magazine, Pitch Perfect,Sound Good webzine, and in Metal Temple. 

Flight709 (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flight709: I'd say if you're going for notability per WP:GNG, then the sources are at best borderline, being a mix of blogs etc., passing (or no) mentions, and reviews of his music (as opposed to coverage of him as a person). If, on the other hand, you want to claim notability per the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline, then you should decide which of the criteria he meets, and provide clear evidence to support that.
This may also partly hinge on what these 'Mystral Tide' and 'Minorarc' entities are. If they are his 'alter egos' or similar, then they may contribute to his notability. Whereas if they are some sort of ensembles or distinct projects, ie. distinct from his person, then they probably won't.
That's my take on it. Others may have different ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flight709
I am a she/her in case of next time and you are right, I am fairly new to AFC however I am certain your article does not pass notability for artist, if we are to be considering their work, then maybe those references you added will be OK to certify them. However those links were brief mention with focus on their work.
I also seek second opinion when it comes to reviewing articles but yours is not a complicated one for me. it's fine you brought this here anyway, let's hear what other reviewers have to say. Tesleemah (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:22, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Gabriella Grande

[edit]

Hello. Is there a way I can submit the draft in a different category such as YouTuber or Entertainer? Because it keeps getting declined as an article about a musician cause DeMartino isn't notable enough as a solo musician, but I've listed so many reliable sources about her that talks about other things than music. Gabriella Grande (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriella Grande: this is actually categorised as biography > media. In any case, that's only for the purposes of administering the AfC process, so that drafts can be searched/browsed by topic area. This has no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, the reviewers will consider all possible aspects of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, But I feel like they don't read the entire draft or actually check the sources because it keeps getting declined for the same reason. Gabriella Grande (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriella Grande: are you saying the reviewers are doing their job incorrectly?
A draft may be declined for any valid reason, which may or may not be the same reason as on previous occasions. If the previous decline reason hasn't been sufficiently addressed, there is a good chance it will be declined on that basis again.
There is no special notability guideline for YouTubers, although I suppose something like WP:CREATIVE could apply. The one for 'entertainers' is at WP:ENTERTAINER. Feel free to point out which aspect of these the subject satisfies, and what evidence supports this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing when did I even say they're doing their job incorrectly? lol. All I'm saying is that they only seem to review her as a musician and not as a public figure in general. Gabriella Grande (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I feel like they don't read the entire draft or actually check the sources"; that would mean they aren't doing their job correctly.
There is not a "public figure" notability criteria. Reviewers look at drafts seeing of any notability criteria will fit, there are not separate categories of review. If a specific one(like musicians) doesn't seem to apply, then the broader notable person one will apply, and reviewers will see this. If you feel that the notable person definition applies and reviewers are not properly applying it, you need to tell us how. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Animexamera

[edit]

It is unclear for me why the submission has been declined, and the editor that declined it got banned so I can't ask them. What do i do? 

Animexamera (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Animexamera uh... the reviewer wasn't actually a proper reviewer, and they've been blocked for sockpuppetry. I've reverted their edits. The draft is now pending review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! Animexamera (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:04, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Brazbiog

[edit]


I have a quick question about "Facebook as a source." When editing the above page, one of the awards the researcher got was by Meta/Facebook. I put the link confirming the award (https://research.facebook.com/fellows/ribeiro-manoel-horta/), and got flagged as "using Facebook as a source." That should be fine, right? This is not Facebook the social network, but rather, Meta, the entity behind Facebook.

Brazbiog (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you were "flagged"(do you mean by an edit filter?) It would be better to use an independent reliable source and not a primary source like Meta itself. Anyone can give out any award or recognition that they want- it means little unless others take note of it and write about it.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). If the only claim to notability is that they got awards, this person would not be notable. If you are asserting that they are a notable professor, you would need to show that they meet at least one aspect of WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it was an edit filter, but not sure what is the implication of that. I would not say that this award or awards are the reason why this person passes the notability criteria. I have found other sources indicating this is a sought-after award (e.g., https://grad.uchicago.edu/fellowship/meta-research-phd-fellowship/). I have also found a secondary source (https://www.epfl.ch/schools/ic/about/awards/phd/)! Thank you for clarifying! Brazbiog (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 December 2024 review of submission by EteriDvalishvili

[edit]

Hi,

I believe my article includes sufficient primary and secondary sources, yet it has been denied twice. Could I kindly ask for more detailed feedback on why it continues to be rejected? I’ve noticed other pages with fewer sources being approved, so I’m trying to better understand what might be missing or where improvements are needed.

Thank you for your time and guidance! EteriDvalishvili (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @EteriDvalishvili. My Georgian is not much, but it seems to me that every one of the items in the Reference list is by Mchedishvili: that means that they are all not only primary but non-independent. 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. Please read WP:42
As for "other pages with fewer sources being approved": First, it is not the number but the quality of sources that matter. An article with three substantial, reliable, and independent sources is of far more value and quality than an article with fifty weak sources. Secondly, I am guessing that these articles you are referring to are ones that have been in Wikipedia for some time, and were created before we were as careful as we are now about sourcing; so they were probably never "approved". If you tell us which ones they are, we can look, and may well find that they do not establish the subject's notability, and should be deleted. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EteriDvalishvili: this draft cites a single source, the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia. Of the multiple citations to that source, one is a biographical profile, the others are catalogue entries. I don't see how this would establish notability via any of the relevant guidelines, namely WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 4 December 2024 review of submission by AlexMalexxx

[edit]

Hello. Im not sure what im doing wrong, Im writing an Article about my Software i made myself, It is also Open-Source and can be found at GitHub. I often put references to my Github README page. Why my Article is being declined ? AlexMalexxx (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexMalexxx: I declined this draft for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that there is no evidence the subject is notable, and the information is insufficiently referenced. Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, and usually requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent.
You also have a clear conflict of interest (COI), which must be properly disclosed. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexMalexxxYour Github page is a primary source and not ok to proof the notability of your article. To do that, you need reliable independent sources like newspapers, magazines etc independent of the article. Tesleemah (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Nandichumki

[edit]

Please help me for resolve this isuue . I want to learn working at wikipedia for. Nandichumki (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'be been given direction on the draft by the reviewers. Do you need clarification about it? 331dot (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nandichumki. I'm afraid that you are having a typical experience for a new editor who immediately tries the challenging task of creating a new article. That is not the only way, nor necessarily the best way, of contributing to Wikipedia; and it is certainly not the best way to learn how to edit. Would you take up a new sport, and immediately enter a major competition? Not only would you probably not get very far, but you would not even understand what the experts were telling you about your game.
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) 16:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Litigator9

[edit]

Can somebody explain why all other editions of Harper's Bazaar are considered notable enough for lists to exist but Vietnam specifically is not? Is it that other editions are generally American and European and Asian editions aren't notable enough in the western world? Litigator9 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that establish that the Vietnam edition of this publication is notable on its own as a distinct topic, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Litigator9. Note that sources do not have to be in English, as long as they are reliable and (in most cases) independent. Citing Harper's Bazaar is pointless.
I suspect that none of these lists are acceptable. I have tagged List of Harper's Bazaar UK cover models as being completely unreferenced, and as possibly not notable. We will see if anything comes from this. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Jamiemrecords

[edit]

Id like more help and information on making this more notable to be included on Wikipedia, as I feel this page should be available thank you I appreciate any guidance on this Jamiemrecords (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jamiemrecords. Notability cannot be created from nowhere: notability is either derived from the special notability criteria for musicians, or through the use of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Your draft fails the latter (none of your sources are independent) and presumably fails the former.
As such, this person is not notable at this time and does not merit a Wikipedia article. The draft has also been rejected and won't be considered further. qcne (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have redone my submission in my sandbox https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jamiemrecords/sandbox
I think this is a lot better are you able to move this to public? Jamiemrecords (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a version of gaming the system and is considered bad faith and disruptive. Further, you have not actually attempted to address any of the issues or followed any of the guidance given to you in the draft's history, why would it be better? Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse...? qcne (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources/references to sandbox. Before I attempt or ask you to submit it can you please honestly tell me what's missing? How can it be improved? In as easily as possible of an explanation so I can consider and redraft Jamiemrecords (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamiemrecords all your sourcing is to his own website and social media accounts. We're not interested in what he has to say about himself, but what others are writing about him e.g. reviews of his work. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:25, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Jamiemrecords

[edit]


Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to explain why I believe that the page in question does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion:

Not Patent Nonsense or Vandalism (G1, G3): The content of the page is neither nonsensical nor vandalism. It presents information in a structured and coherent manner, attempting to inform or entertain rather than disrupt or mislead. The page does not contain gibberish, hoax, or attack content that would warrant immediate deletion under these criteria. Not Empty or Without Context (A3): The page provides context, even if it's brief, and has the potential to be expanded into a more comprehensive article. It includes references or links which provide some level of foundation for the article, making it more than just a rephrasing of the title or a collection of external links. Not Recently Created or Abandoned (G13): If the page has been edited recently or shows signs of ongoing development, it does not qualify for deletion due to inactivity. The criteria for G13 require no edits for six months, which does not apply if the page is actively maintained or if there's an intention to improve it. Not a Clear Copyright Violation (G12): There's no evidence presented that the page content is a verbatim copy of copyrighted material without proper licensing. If the content is original or appropriately sourced with fair use considerations, it does not fall under this criterion. Not an Obvious Advertisement or Promotion (G11): While some articles might initially appear promotional, if they offer encyclopedic value by providing information beyond mere promotion, they should not be deleted under this criterion. The distinction between promotional and informational content can sometimes be nuanced, and if there's an argument for the article's educational value, it should be considered. Not a Duplicate (G6): If the article in question does not replicate content found elsewhere on Wikipedia, especially if it discusses a different aspect or offers a different perspective on the subject, it shouldn't be considered for speedy deletion under this criterion. Not Uncontroversial (Proposed Deletion, PROD): For a page to be proposed for deletion, it should be uncontroversial; however, if there is any debate or doubt regarding its deletion, it should go through a full deletion discussion rather than being speedily deleted.

The purpose of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria is to remove pages that have no practical chance of surviving a deletion discussion due to their clear lack of value or appropriateness for Wikipedia. If the page in question has potential for improvement, offers unique information, or has any community interest, it should not be deleted without a thorough review through the Articles for Deletion process, where the community can discuss its merits or lack thereof.

Thank you for considering this explanation. I believe the page deserves a chance for community discussion before any decision on deletion is made, as it does not clearly and unambiguously meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Sincerely, Jamie Jamiemrecords (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly the writing of an AI/LLM chatbot, and does not benefit the discussion or contentions you've made whatsoever. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rejected, and, Jamiemrecords, these blandishments do not change my mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_4&oldid=1262200593"