Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 1 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 3 >
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 2

[edit]

03:16, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Tyriopp

[edit]

comment was AI generated spam? how is that so? elaborate on that please and im open to advice 

Tyriopp (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyriopp, ChatGPT and other AIs/LLMs write drafts with certain details that human-written drafts usually don't have. Your draft shows signs of being written by AI. We don't generally elaborate on what those signs are because people might use that information to try to sneak AI-generated drafts into Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and there can be major problems with AI-generated articles - things like hallucinated references, for example. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia regardless of any AI or ChatGPT use or maybe because of it? Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Stephanietheva

[edit]

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The linked article is an article, not a draft, and it was published in 2023. I'm guessing you meant Draft:Ivy Cohen.
My opinion about this draft - it has no inline citations, which has a specific guide. The tone of the article is quite promotional. This page may help with that. Looking at the 4 sources, all of them seem weak. The first three of them are not independent, and the last one does not really help with notability. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Stephanietheva. Yes, "rejected" means that this draft cannot go any further.
Notability in Wikipedia has a special meaning, which is different from popularity (and from fame, importance, influence, and all the other conventional meanings). It mostly means that there is enough independent reliably published material about the subject to base an article on, remembering 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.
If you cannot find suitable sources (each of which should meet all three criteria in WP:42) then the subject is probably not notable, and you should not waste any more time on this attempt. (And if the rejecting reviewer says that they are not sufficiently notable, you can generally reckon that they have gone looking for sources and not found them).
If you can find sources that demonstrate notability, then you should approach the rejecting reviewer directly, citing those sources, and asking them to reconsider. But please do not bother them unless you have solid evidence that Cohen meets the criteria.
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) 15:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Stephanietheva

[edit]
Duplicate discussion. The original thread seems to be located above this one.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanietheva, did you click the link in the message? It explains notability as Wikipedia means it, and will tell you what you need to find if you want to show that your subject is notable and thus should have an article. StartGrammarTime (talk) StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

04:13, 2 December 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

[edit]

I am writing to see if I can receive a response regarding an archived ticket that I have logged with HelpDesk: 04:38, 7 November 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

I already added a response to this archived ticket however I have realized that I may not get a response, therefore I'm logging a new ticket.

In regards to the archived ticket, I was given the feedback that I should improve the Wikipedia page in regards to the Notability and WP:GNG policies. As the draft submission was rejected due to not meeting these policies.

As per the feedback, I have made changes to the draft and have added sources which cover the topic, hopefully complying with the WP:GNG and Notability policies. Could you please let me know if these polices are met now and if it would be suitable for me to go ahead and submit it. Any further feedback is much appreciated as it would assist in updating the draft even further!

Thank you in advance! DebugDruid (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have wanted to directly discuss with the reviewer who rejected your draft (@Shadow311 in this case) first. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DebugDruid: Submit the draft for review – that's how you request feedback on notability. The draft has not been rejected (which would mean that you couldn't resubmit it), only declined, which means that you have the option ti resubmit. Your fellow editors who volunteer as reviewers don't do pre-reviews at this help board. --bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bonadea. I submitted the draft for review like you stated however I'm not receiving enough feedback to continue editing the draft.
I was told by the reviewer that the article seems like "blatant advertising" so I asked them on their user talk page what specifically sounded like it was advertising. They responded by letting me know the parts they believed to showcase this.
After implementing the feedback, I asked them for further feedback, however I have received the same feedback the second time around which hasn't helped me in any way. You can find this feedback at their talk page - Theroadislong talk page.
Could you please assist me in knowing what is still the issue with the the draft, as from previous feedback I was told to add sources to the article which I have done and now the issue is up with the draft sounding like its advertising. I just feel like I have been getting put in a ringer and coming back to the starting point without making any progress. I have submitted the draft once again as well.
Your support is much appreciated!
Thank you! DebugDruid (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 2 December 2024 review of submission by ORISEXP

[edit]

Hello Community! I hope I find you doing well. I created a Wikipedia page yesterday and the submission was declined. Is there any natural cause for this? ORISEXP (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORISEXP Please see the message left at the top of your draft by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. I would ask you what your connection is to this musician, as you appear to have taken a photo of him in his vehicle. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Seblmnal

[edit]

i was rejected and i want to fix the problem Seblmnal (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seblmnal: the problem isn't easily fixed; there is nothing in this draft to suggest that you are notable in the Wikipedia context. Focus on your career, get covered in the media, maybe win a Grammy or two, and one day someone will surely write an article on you. (Even then that someone shouldn't be you, though – see WP:AUTOBIO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Pancras Hogendoorn

[edit]

I have added a reference which I use 3 times in the text and it now gives: Cite error: The named reference Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937) was invoked but never defined (see the help page). I looked at the help page but cannot get it fixed. Can you help me out? Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pancras Hogendoorn: this isn't strictly speaking an AfC matter anymore, now that the draft has been published; you should ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. But since you're here... the problem is in the first citation: <ref name="Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)"> This is calling a source named "Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)", but no such source name has been defined. The solution is actually easier to do than to explain, so I'll go and fix it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Kirkoconnell

[edit]

I follow the Digital Civics page and I went to University with Estelle and have followed her career for a while now.

I am just noticing some declines in articles write by or about her. I suspect she tried to edit her own articles, at least from what I can tell here.

I guess I thought I would request less vague assistance. On this article in particular, it seems rather well written with great sourcing, yet it states that the sources are not enough.

I've checked them and they seem fine to me. Now, I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while now and I know rules have changed, but is there something explicitly wrong with the sources listed that can be addressed as opposed to this vague "Not the Right Kind of sources", as it lists. When I reviewed the requirements for that page and compared them to the links, they actually seem to meet the criteria.

Anyway, looking at this here, I think Estelle's issue was that she believed it was OK for her to edit her own articles, which I know is a no-go. I am willing to write the articles but I don't want to be in this circular trap of modifying an article, getting it taken down for "sources issues" and constantly fight back and forth on it.

So can I get clearer direction on what the sourcing issue is exactly so that I may address it?

All I really know is that Dr. Clements really did do research, really is a Digital Civics expert, and developed at least two concepts in the field, well the field itself (Digital Civics) and Shadow Footprints, from the studies and articles she has released anyway.

Besides having attending University with Dr. Clements, I have followed her career has it took her from North America over to the UK and am keen on getting these concepts in Wikipedia. I do science communication and Digital civics in general, and Shadow Footprints as a concept, have been great insights to trying to solve the divide we see with information online.

So I am willing to work with people on what needs to be changed, but I do need a bit more than "source not be good". Kirkoconnell (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kirkoconnell: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is notable, not for inadequate sources per se. Notability, according to the general WP:GNG guideline, requires significant coverage directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites mostly works by the subject, plus a few other primary sources, which doesn't satisfy GNG.
The other route for academics to demonstrate notability is described in the special WP:NPROF guideline, and more specifically in the list of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. The main difference between this and GNG is that the focus is less on secondary sources (in fact, so much so that no secondary sources are needed at all), and more on career achievements and standing in the academic community. It may be that NPROF is easier to satisfy in this case, based on your description and a quick scan of the sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting watching the rules change constantly.
I think unless Estelle won a Noble prize, I doubt she could meet the requirements listed in modern academics.
I remember once that I was accused of hating Gay people because I deleted an account from someone who wasn't considered notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Jensen. They literally harassed me online until I stopped requesting that their account get deleted.
I wish you guys cared as much about the rules back then. Well, I give up. I tried to help but I guess the whole "Be Bold" thing is just BS.
I would ask for a greater clarification, as when I review what is posted and the sources I see it hit the checkmarks you are demanding, but when you review it you don't see that, but I suspect there is no further direction incoming. Just "this doesn't meet some weird standard IN MY OPINION because, sure, it matches the words of it but I DO NOT BELIEVE it matches the words, so therefore, it does not".
I get it.
Sorry I even tried. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkoconnell "Be bold" means we want people to act, but it doesn't mean they get a pass on policies and consultation with other editors/consensus. This process is usually voluntary, if you truly feel that the reviewer got it wrong, you are free to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, though you are rolling the dice that it will not be nominated for deletion. The main standard reviewers go by is "would this survive an Articles for deletion discussion"?
I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't care for this weird fighting.
When I religiously edited the site, people would fight with me COSNTANTLY about non-sense articles that never met standard, but the Wiki people would say "Be Bold" and keep the article.
NOW, I see a legit article with full citations that match literally every requirement to a Tee, and NOW there is a WHOLE NEW LEVEL of requirements to make an article, that cannot seem to accurately defined, but it's wrong because "reasons" and until I fix these ambiguous "reasons", the article cannot even be displayed. And when I ask for examples of the "reasons", I get no feedback whatever, or I get given a 55 page article and told to read it. Then I do read it, find no issues that match up, ask again where I made the mistake, and get zero actual feedback again.
I am just losing faith in Wikipedia in general. It seems if you are an idiot, you can make whatever article you want and it's cool. If you actually do research, try to cite things, people will delete the articles, say some vague non-sense that does not make sense in the context of the article, when you push back and ask for more explicit information, they just throw their hands up and say "find someone else".
"I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules."
WHAT ****ING RULES? Where is the problem? THIS IS WHAT I AM ASKING. I get told "These sources don't cite this", where those sources are not meant to cite that, so what is the problem? Or I get told "Not enough secondary sources", I point to at least three that were in the article from the start and no one mentions secondary sources to me again but it's still a problem.
I WANT TO FIX THE ARTICLE. But saying vague non-sense and when they ask for more feedback because it seems what is being said doesn't match what the accused claim is, how am I supposed to fix it?
If you accuse me of stealing and I claim I have video evidence of myself in my house the whole day, your reply can't be "well stuff was stolen, deal with it" and expect me to be OK with that.
Unless you are on Wikipedia, apparently. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, what is unclear or vague about the reasons being given to you? They seem pretty clear to me- but it could just be me, truly. You were even told that WP:NPROF is the best pathway forward here. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize, but if you don't think you can show she meets those criteria, the more general notable person definition would be controlling.
Note that the nature of this process is that different reviewers will see different things at different times, and may not see what was seen before. That doesn't mean it is or is not still a problem.
I understand not wanting to fight- but that's sometimes necessary. This isn't a place to just post something and forget about it. You need to be here- active and defending it at least for a time. Not everyone wants to do that- which is fine- but that's the nature of a collaborative community with different people and different perspectives. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I again stress- if you feel the reviewer got it wrong, or this process is too bureaucratic and stressful- it's not required that you use it. You can move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkoconnell Can we skip the stuff about whether Wikipedia is fair or not, please.
Draft:Estelle Clements has been declined once by SafariScribe. In the event that you feel a review to be in any way not justifiable it is customary to ask that reviewer. It's fine to come here, but we cannot know what is in their mind.
I'm going to have a look at the draft and make my determination. I may agree with them or disagree. I'll let you know either way.
I'm no-one special. Just a reviewer. You'll still get my best opinion, whatever I am. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkoconnell As promised, I have left a detailed review comment on the draft. This is as useful to you as a formal review. I have noted that I am currently unable to assess the contribution her authorship of papers makes towards her notability. We need other eyes for that.
I hope that meets your needs in your original post. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Cael Thorington

[edit]

Why wont you accept my article I just want a page on wikipedia Cael Thorington (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cael Thorington People don't have "pages" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles about people, typically written by independent editors. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. I suggest you focus on your career, if you truly meet the relevant notability criteria, someone will eventually write about you. Be aware that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessariluy desirable, there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cael Thorington Do you pass WP:NATHLETE? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 2 December 2024 review of submission by The Politicians Page

[edit]

It's been frequently rejected, after adding references also. The Politicians Page (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you first must appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. He seems to be a lower level regional party official; he wouldn't meet the notable politician definition as he does not hold public office. The coverage doesn't seem to be there to meet the broader notable person definition, this is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Tumblr and Facebook are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 2 December 2024 review of submission by 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8

[edit]

Hi, thank you so much for the feedback. Could you give some detailed feedback on how to improve it? I'd really like to see this article be posted. Thank you so much again for the review! 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The previous reviews must remain on the draft. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's still written in an essay style. If you are able to fundamentally change the style of the draft to be more encyclopedic, you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_2&oldid=1261802809"