Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 5 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 7 >
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 6

[edit]

00:05, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Gattofr

[edit]

Hi! I would like to understand the rationale for rejection. This is a large organization as clearly demonstrated by the independent sources (e.g. NATO uses this institute to operate their start-up incubator program, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences co-administer an awards with them, etc.). It is even featured by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1]. Thanks! Gattofr (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not rejected, simply declined. I am not the reviewer but i would suggest getting more third party sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Echowanderer43

[edit]

Can someone please help me understand what I need to do to get my page accepted. The topic is biography for Michael Cristiano, who is referred to on other wiki articles including The Seekers, Judith Durham, and Mirusia. Feedback included improvement needed for incline citations, which I believe to have been added according to guidelines.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

ABC is a reliable source, and Noise11 was cited which has been deemed to be a reliable source on other wiki pages.

Any help would be appreciated. Echowanderer43 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add inline citations. Not that the sources are unreliable, literally everything outside the summary has no citations.
Also advice: Just that a website was used for citing on another wiki page does not make it reliable. I have seen tonnes of unreliable sources on other pages before Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Adding a citation at the end of a sentence is not an inline citation? For example:
"Over the course of his career, Cristiano has worked with notable Australian and international artists and has been involved in both solo projects and collaborations. Cristiano joined The Seekers in 1988 as Guitarist, and in 1992 as their Music Director and Producer (citation was added here)."
I went to cite at the end of the sentence, and added an auto citation. Should I be doing this differently? Echowanderer43 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put summaries in the main body of the draft. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I shouldn't have sub-headings, if I have understood correctly? Echowanderer43 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just add citations where the Headings are
the problem is not the sub headings, it is that there are no citations there Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Echowanderer43: Subheadings are fine to have, and inline citations should not be placed in or next to the headings. An inline citation is indeed, as you suggested above, placed at the end of a sentence or a paragraph supported by the cited source. The issue that the reviewer pointed out was that there are no such citations for several of the sub-sections. If that information is in fact supported by sources that are already in the draft, you'll need to help the reader understand this by re-using the citation, as you have done for instance with reference 2 in the current version of the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, this is most helpful.
Double checking, I have correctly added inline citations where needed, but need to add inline citations to paragraphs where there are none. Echowanderer43 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, still some areas needing citations but overall huge improvement Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I gave it an overhaul and hopefully will be good to go, now it has been submitted. Thanks to all for your help. Echowanderer43 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:59, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

May I ask if there is a way to directly respond to comments on the draft(other than invisible comments)? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: Use the draft talk page, Draft talk:7th Marine Brigade. --bonadea contributions talk 06:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:21, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Keithk79

[edit]

what is wrong with the way I have written this submission? Keithk79 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keithk79, a biography of a living person like Lawson requires several references to reliable sources entirely independent of Lawson that devote significant coverage to Lawson. See WP:NPERSON. His own website is not independent. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:55, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Simmopa

[edit]

Submission declined Simmopa (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted references to the official WWFF websites, I am unclear why the submission has been declined Simmopa (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simmopa, please understand 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) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's because you're not referencing independent sources. The WWFF is valid but doesn't help establish notability for the subject itself. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Bolaji abegi

[edit]
@Vanderwaalforces: called the page dubious, and That I am paid.

Those are serious allegations that you can't just make up.

The references there are at least notable.


@Vanderwaalforces: Should remove those comments for a more transparent reviewer. 

Bolaji abegi (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you for free that those sources are entirely dubious. Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. This whole event started from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ondo State Youth Network for anyone who needs context. While you’re not a participant there, you might just be connected somehow.
There’s no way one would randomly write about this subject with such dubious sources. I’d advise you to focus elsewhere if you’re truly here to build an encyclopedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:51, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

[edit]

When this draft will be public This is the draft of most popular hindu religion Saintknown as Jagadguru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand. Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saksham Singh Yogi: I can't say when it will be reviewed; we have over 1,500 drafts awaiting review, and they are not reviewed in any particular order.
What I can tell you is that when reviewed, this draft will almost certainly be declined, because it is insufficiently referenced. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict requirements for referencing, with pretty much every statement needing to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. This draft has entire sections without a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft also borders on a hagiography both in tone and content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Zygor

[edit]

I have submitted the article as per the requirements, including keeping it neurtral as an encyclopedia article. I am submitting this specific page as NekNomination is all over Wikipedia including a South African edition that was changed and initiated by this person named Brent Lindique. The reason it existed and it made the news on CNN, Sky News, etc. and I wanted to give credit. What else can I do? There are so many references to this initiation? Perhaps your assistance can help as the article provides proof and credit to the person responsible for the NekNomination in South Africa. Thanks for your help. 

Zygor (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zygor: I'm not quite sure what exactly you're asking. This draft was reviewed, and declined. Your next steps should be to improve it based on the feedback, and then resubmit it for another review. That's "what else [you] can do". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Simarx13

[edit]

need help to fix Simarx13 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simarx13 what exactly do you need help fixing? The draft has been declined as most of its sources are not reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Caalou

[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure what to do next to make this draft better. I'm guessing I should delete the unreliable sources? Can I still leave the information in the article, in the hope that someone can find a better source for it later? I don't have a lot of experience with creating articles, so any help/advice is appreciated, thanks! Caalou (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caalou: indeed you should not be citing non-reliable sources. And no, you cannot leave the information there, if it isn't sufficiently supported (ie. not at all, or only by non-reliable sources). In all articles, but especially so in articles on living people, everything must be verifiable from reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 86.129.173.234

[edit]

Hi there, one of the reasons for the submission being denied what because of the sources. Please could you help me understand the kinds of sources that would be better to reference? In particular for things such as the ownership and acquisition, would PR pieces not suffice?

Thanks 86.129.173.234 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point about sources is that this draft only cites primary ones, which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. In fact, the draft should mainly consist of summary of such sources' coverage. Currently this is written entirely from the company's point of view, and basically reads like a corporate presentation or brochure, which makes it inherently promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:E9BE:FE69:62DC:E3B8

[edit]

This page matches the name of the tourist attraction, amusement park or landmark. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:E9BE:FE69:62DC:E3B8 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your question is, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft does little more than state that this attraction exists. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continually removed my decline notices, which is disruptive. I gave you advice on how to prove notability but you seem to want to ignore it, thus wasting review time.
If you find more sources, let me know. qcne (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Naimahmu

[edit]

I made significant changes to prepare the page for resubmission and I can't find any of the work I did. Naimahmu (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naimahmu did you press the "Publish changes" button? Edits to Wikipedia pages do not automatically save. You must click "Publish changes" to publish the changes you've made to the page. Your browser cache can also sometimes become buggy and loose work, so you should click Publish changes regularly. qcne (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, unfortunately, there are no other edits in your contribution history in the last few days, so it looks like you may have lost any work you did. qcne (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sigh, yes, I did click the "publish changes" each time. Is there any chance that one version overrides another? As in perhaps the page moving from my draft to the new category by the reviewer on 11/1 somehow made one version, the one I was working on, delete? Naimahmu (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, @Naimahmu- I can't find any other edits in your contribution history. Could you check your browser history to see if perhaps you edited something while logged out? qcne (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Sillycone 1

[edit]

I need help changing the name of the page Sillycone 1 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. It will be placed at the proper title when accepted. Before you worry about the title, you need to provide your sources. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 87.116.167.45

[edit]

Hi, how can we speed up the process of confirming our publication? 87.116.167.45 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Do you have a particular need for one? If you are a band member, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 6 December 2024 review of submission by KieranMO

[edit]

I am requesting submission of the draft page of Motability Operations Ltd. If anyone could help look at this/review - please let me know :) KieranMO (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KieranMO You need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of the draft. However, it is not likely to be accepted, as it seems to be exclusively sourced to the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, and show how it is notable.(specifically a notable company)
You declared a conflict of interest, if you work for this company, you must instead make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 6 December 2024 review of submission by TheMostTrustfull

[edit]

What needs to change for this article to be posted TheMostTrustfull (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @TheMostTrustfull. It's been rejected and won't be considered further. Wikipedia isn't a place to write AI-generated drafts about random people. qcne (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Brianda (Wiki Ed)

[edit]

Hello, Looking for additional opinions/reviewers on the notability of the drafts Gabe Gomes, Osvaldo Gutierrez and Ryan Emanuel to see whether they satisfy WP:Basic. Thanks yall. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Brianda (Wiki Ed), from a quick pass of all three, I'm not seeing coverage that would immediately assume notability given the criteria at WP:NPROF (please point out if you think I've missed something). I think these reviews will require an in-depth analysis of their sources and might need to get by on the WP:GNG if they can't meet NPROF. Are these for a course with a timeline? I have a softspot for the Wiki Ed program so if I get a chance I'll try and take a closer look soon. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Brianda (Wiki Ed): I've done a review of the first one but I think they are all going to be about the same, I'm not seeing these as meeting the GNG, NPROF, or NBASIC guidelines unless someone wants to argue the extent of the trivial coverage surpasses the concerns given the lack of significant coverage, but I think this would need to be an argument made at AfD. I see that these are all draftified articles, I don't think I would've draftified them but I don't know if theres enough to pass them at AFC. As they've been draftified, there's always the option to dispute that, but I don't presently see these subjects as being notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Bobby Cohn for your review. Appreciate your time looking over these drafts. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Ranchella

[edit]

the company is actually notable, how can i get it approved? Ranchella (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranchella: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It was determined not notable because the company has only received coverage about their funding round. Corporations need to actually pass the notability test set out at WP:NCORP, which your draft has not done, and which the company is not able to presently do. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_6&oldid=1262989375"