Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 15 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 17 >
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.


October 16

[edit]

02:34, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Eddie.AMDBI

[edit]

My wiki page was deemed: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The company is the first local Malaysian multi level company self made company from 1992, that is similar to Amway (a global MLM brand). But this company has been around for 3 decades. why is it not notable for inclusion? Eddie.AMDBI (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kinda sounds like you never read the reviewer comments. Please take a look before coming back here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Wikiwookie543

[edit]

I don't really understand why my article was declined for not being neutral. I have just stated the facts. Can you explain? I also want to change my title to the long form of the organization (American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council (AMMWEC)), not just AMMWEC. How do I do this? Wikiwookie543 (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwookie543: this draft just tells us what the organisation does, by quoting or regurgitating content from their website, press releases, etc., which inevitably gives it a corporate jargony feel. In any case, we're not interested in that, we want to hear what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about them, and what makes them worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for that feedback. I have removed all press releases, and only kept the references to the website that I thought were absolutely necessary (their mission in their own words, their leaders). Please let me know if this works for you and your team. Wikiwookie543 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Renaming is done by moving the draft to a new title. However, you don't need to worry about it at this stage; if/when this draft is accepted, it will be moved to a new name anyway. I've made a note of your preferred title in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Wikiwookie543  Not done, technical issue. (Per below error message)
You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:
The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.
If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.
The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.
If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Sateesh584

[edit]

how to add my village in wikipedia Sateesh584 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sateesh584 You only provide one source, a YouTube video. YouTube is not an acceptable source unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. An article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. See Referencing for beginners as well. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Jn.mdel

[edit]

The original reviewer @TheLonelyPather declined the first draft for review in May 2024 - stating "contrary to purposes of wikipedia" and reasoned that "we already have Polarisation (waves)" article. Immediately then it was pointed out to reviewer that "Polarisation (waves)" article does not even talk of E and B modes of polarisation (infact even till today that article has nothing to do with it) - and so thereafter in response the reviewer took a stance - "Oh it seems from your references that this is about Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation - so add / update this there". In response again I pointed out that E and B modes is not only relevant for CMB but to other cosmic background radiations also - infact for gravitational waves too - and this had already been written in my original submission comments also (which no one read/ignored) that - "Adding article to explain E and B modes - especially relevant to CMB and gravitational waves study" - but still to no avail. Now after a gap, I again made the efforts to update the draft with as much information as possible - infact clarifying / adding as many references as were being asked of me daily by some of the original discussion participants - but despite my multiple messages even to the original reviewer to review and realise/accept the mistake as a genuine "good-faith" oversight and now make amends to remove the original decline, the original reviewer instead is just choosing to remain silent till date - it has been 10 days of multiple messages - no response / no communication. I fail to understand how some who have been given certain privileges on wikipedia - which are only meant for rendering service to wikipedia and its contributors (and not as a perk to sit on high throne) - how can someone ignore a contributor - especially when I have been consistently reiterating the original draft submission and adding more and more and more as an individual. Faulting a content can be understandable and discussed to resolve - but just because the reviewer does not wish to admit a mistake - that cannot be the reason for all the work to go down the drain. Hence, I write now to HELPDESK that this original incorrect decline may kindly be reviewed for revert - do a review of the content and then decide - because i know after all this groundwork that E and B modes is not explained on Wikipedia till now - and that has been my only humble submission from day one. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely wish you could have first read the above before suggesting "1st step".
Anyways see the original discussions in 1st step at : User talk:Jn.mdel#Your submission at Articles for creation: Polarization E and B modes (May 7)
See the 2nd attempt of 1st step at : [1]
And now see the 3rd attempt of the 1st step at : User talk:Jn.mdel#Concern regarding Draft:Polarization E and B modes
Maybe now you can appreciate the reasons for approaching helpdesk. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jn.mdel: if I understand correctly, you are asking us to revert the rejection of this draft. There is no need for this; your account is autoconfirmed, therefore you can publish the draft yourself, if you are determined to do so against the views of the three editors (two of whom are new page reviewers) with whom you have discussed this matter extensively on your talk page. New page patrol will then assess the article instead of us here at AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Nonoj36

[edit]

how can i improve my references? i need help Nonoj36 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need references that give this man significant coverage, that don't just document his activities, sources that discuss what makes him a notable person. Do sources write about unique business strategies he has created and others emulate? Any other particular influence in his field? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 16 October 2024 review of submission by The Politicians Page

[edit]

It's been frequently declining The Politicians Page (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to meet NPOLITICIAN, as he does not hold elected office and has not won election to public office. He's just a local party official. You would then need to show he meets the broader notable person definition, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
You seem to be associated with him, as you took a very professional looking image of him and he posed for you. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113

[edit]

The sources are notable.but,those are say that's not.which one is good for notable sources 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "notable source". There are sources which can demonstrate notability, but this draft does not cite any. Consequently, this has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have zero usable sources. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and other forms of strict editorial control.Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 2A06:F987:FFFF:2822:DED:3C9:BB63:A9DA

[edit]

Hi friends ! I got some message from you. Will you unblock me now ? 2A06:F987:FFFF:2822:DED:3C9:BB63:A9DA (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Maybe, maybe not. But we can't even look at your case if you don't tell us what the accountname is that you were blocked under. And I've no idea what Slaviccommonwealth.com means in this context: it's neither a Wikipedia article, nor a Draft, nor a user account. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 144.48.115.41

[edit]

a 144.48.115.41 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Pythonbrad

[edit]

I don't have enough references for this article. Pythonbrad (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean this topic does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Kaustubh42

[edit]

What is missing as we have added each thing now ? Kaustubh42 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "we", exactly? Tavantius (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Mfunderburk

[edit]

I recently was denied within a review of my page, Draft:Thriveworks. I agree with the previous editor, Bonadea's, assessment. I’ve made significant changes to ensure the draft is unbiased. I’ve reworded and removed content, particularly in the introduction, services, partnerships, and history sections, to address the concerns. I hope you agree with these changes and could confirm or deny if I have done so properly.

As a reminder, I have disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) in every edit summary and on my user page. I fully respect Wikipedia's guidelines, which is why I chose to go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

I believe the updated draft now meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and neutrality. The sources are reliable, strictly independent, and provide in-depth coverage. Here are the three sources I feel best meet the criteria for WP in regards to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources & https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline:

https://medcitynews.com/2024/07/thriveworks-ophelia-team-up-for-mental-health-oud-support/

https://patch.com/illinois/joliet/thriveworks-partners-joliet-offer-mental-health-services

https://bhbusiness.com/2024/04/11/new-thriveworks-ceo-bullish-on-enterprise-agreements/


I believe the article now reads as an encyclopedic entry, not as a corporate listing, and is worthy of publication. Could you please review it again and let me know if you agree? If further adjustments are needed, I’d appreciate any additional guidance. Or if you think I am good to now resubmit, I would appreciate that heads up!

Thank you for your time, and stay safe!

Mfunderburk (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you think you have addressed the problem, resubmit the draft: that is what submission is for. We don't do on-demand reviews on this page.
Though I will say that nothing in the draft leads me to think that this company is notable. I haven't looked at what the sources say about it though. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Durocel

[edit]

Hello, I'm writing about my draft about Slovak players that have played or play in American Hockey League. I wanted some tips what to do to get my arcticle public, I have been told that Eliteprospects cannot be used to prove the list meets notabillity guidelines. So what should I do more?

Thanks for answer and hope you have a great day! Yours sincirely, Durocel Durocel (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Maybe try more to show that the list will meet WP:NLIST? The current source works great for confirming nationality like the reviewer said. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

I know that there will be articles talking about Little Z that I can use to source the page, however I have trouble finding them as the videos appear instead. What's a good way to find credible sources?

Also, what would be an acceptable YouTube source to article source ratio? Alpharad's page, as well as presumably many internet creator pages, contain mostly YouTube links in the References, but I added too many to the Little Z page apparently, so I was wondering a percentage that could be used? Mayor Orangutan (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube in general should not be used at all, so 0:inf. Of course, it is usable in LIMITED cases, like supporting a youtuber's subscriber count. (WP:ABOUTSELF). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube subscriber counts, likes on a YT video and similar stats are actually not supposed to be sourced from the channel/video itself. Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is an essay (not guideline/policy) but it discusses why that is the case. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's all good, but a lot of articles do contain a high amount of YouTube sources. Alpharad's page has over 50% YouTube source links, and I know I'm not supposed to use the reason that other stuff exists, but the page was inspired by the Alpharad page, so this kind of threw me off. I think it's often acceptable to use YouTube sources, but I don't know that much about the system.
Also, about the whole finding credible sources thing, is there a sort of feature to find them? I know I read an article about Little Z getting engaged when it happened, but I can't find it when I search for it, and really can't find any articles about anything.
Thanks. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. If you'd like to identify these other articles, we can take action. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]