Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 10
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 9 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 11 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
August 10
edit01:15:01, 10 August 2019 review of submission by KendallDH
edit
KendallDH (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
My article was declined recently and now I understand why my article was declined, I wanted to know if I can still edit my article after it's been declined and if so, how would I be able to edit the article?KendallDH (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @KendallDH: You can theoretically continue editing the same page like you did before (click "edit" next to the page name above, for example). However, it is very unlikely that this article will be accepted, because there are no sources, so editing will likely be for nothing. Wikipedia needs multiple in-depth independent sources about the topic itself for an article to be considered for inclusion. This seems like a very small niche topic for which such sources do not exist. Of course, I might be wrong. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
KendallDH (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) I see that some articles that are rejected end up going to a page called "EverybodyWiki". Will the articles stay there for only a certain amount of time or does a copy of the article stay there forever?KendallDH (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @KendallDH: EverybodyWiki is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the parent organization WMF. They automatically copy rejected biography draft articles. As per our disclaimer "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". So if EverybodyWiki wants to use this content, they are free to do so and barring legal issues they can do whatever they want. You can see their FAQ, but Wikipedia or WMF has no say over it. We don't know how long the content will stay there, it's up to them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
09:47:40, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Ishkhan Gharibyan
edit
Ishkhan Gharibyan (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ishkhan Gharibyan is Armenian famous actor and he need a wikipedia page. Please re-review this article
- @Ishkhan Gharibyan: Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is having multiple in-depth sources about a person. Things like "famous" are subjective, so we can't use such claims. Similarly, no one really "needs" a Wikipedia page as this is an encyclopedia rather than just a collection of information; so we create artcles based on the mentioned criteria. For people, there are some exceptions, like being in multiple notable productions or receiving a well-known awards. It seems that neither criteria is satisfied here -- only one production appears notable (that is, with an article) and the award appears to be a local national one. In the end, there simply aren't any in-depth sources about the person. I think it is possible that at some point the person will have sufficient source coverage or notable production appearances, but it doesn't look so at this time. Also, please follow WP:DISCLOSE as was advised to you on your talk page. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
12:03:05, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Pavlor
editI adopted this draft and will move it in the article mainspace myself. There are still language issues ("Czenglish"), but in my experience good people here will rewrite most offending parts in few days. As this draft was a declined AfC submission, I leave here this courtesy note. Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
20:55:24, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Mavdog2020
edit- Mavdog2020 (talk · contribs)
because Mavdog2020 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Mavdog2020: This topic has no sources and is clearly not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mavdog2020 (talk · contribs)
because my artical got denied
Mavdog2020 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requires high quality sourcing (reliable, independent, in-depth and secondary) - if it was felt that there might be some potential sources elsewhere (that just hadn't been added to the article) then it would have been declined. However, the reviewer correctly rejected it because there is no way it can satisfy the requirements for Notability.
- If you want it to have a wikipedia article work to get some secondary coverage and someone else will eventually choose to write about it if you become sufficiently notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
23:17:29, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Mavdog2020
edit- Mavdog2020 (talk · contribs)
because i have no idea why my artical was denied Mavdog2020 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Mavdog2020: - please see above Nosebagbear (talk)
23:20:22, 10 August 2019 review of draft by MSchnitzler2000
edit
Last night, I wrote the new article about the film. It was declined because of missing reference. I must admit that I'm not familiar with the guidelines of the en-wiki, because the German Wikipedia is my homebase. In the German Wikipedia I wrote several articles about films and always used IMDb as the source for the actors and other information. It was never a problem. My article here about Blood,_Sweat,_and_Lies only has the infobox information and the plot. The infobox is sourced with IMDb and the plot is derived from the film itself. So, I don't understand at all why my article is not accepted.
MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MSchnitzler2000: - hi there, and welcome to en-wiki. 2 key things - imdb is specifically not counted as a reliable source on en-wiki (we judge it as equivalent to citing to wikipedia), so sourcing to it doesn't help. WP:NFILM is our film notability guideline, which in general terms requires 2 high quality reviews to demonstrate notability (there are other criteria, but that's the normal one). ImDB has a few external reviews, but I don't know if they are sufficiently reliable/independent, but it's a good first looking place.
- Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if you'd like me to take another look Nosebagbear (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @User:Nosebagbear, now we have to completely different explanations. So what is the problem - missing reference or the reviews? Furthermore, "high quality reviews" is very vague and POV. Which of the reviews linked here is sufficient? I don't want to work on the article anymore if my work is immediately destroyed on the basis of dubious criteria. --MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MSchnitzler2000: - so either would have sufficed as a decline reason - I would have got for the film notability/review issue, since if you satisfy that one, you've automatically satisfied the general sourcing one. "high quality reviews" was just a short hand phrasing I used - it's got the usual "independent/reliable/significant coverage/secondary" criteria that any source proving notability needs, plus the NACTOR criterion for "nationally known" (the only reviews I've ever seen disqualified under this requirement, and not any of the others, are local newspaper sources).
- In terms of the five external reviews listed, the first 3 (marcfusion, best darn girls & movie scene) aren't sufficiently reliable as there's no editorial control - they're in effect 1 person blogs. I can't find any "about" details on through the shattered lens, so I can't tell. For Geeks Media, it all comes down to whether they review the contributor's content (all of which is sort of freelancing on the site) - if it is, then it's probably a good source, but it wasn't immediately clear on the site. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)