Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 April 15

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 14 << Mar | April | May >> April 16 >
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.


April 15

edit

04:55:57, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya

edit


the article which I submitted for publishing, reviewed are Nepali proverbs ......... actually its used in daily lives and most of them do not have an exact English translation. as nowadays people are not using these either in writing nor in spoken.. these will disappear with time... thus I am doing this to preserve it for future generations. please do suggest how can I do it. with regards.... sudan Bhattarai.....

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya, What article? What you linked to is just an article that says "nepali proverbs" in nepalese Sulfurboy (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:59, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Joseph Carrollane

edit


Hi there, I've shortened the Wikipedia entry for the Hello Dating app. Please take another look to see if it's more acceptable.

Joseph Carrollane (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Carrollane, The article was rejected which means a fellow reviewer has determined that there is no hope to demonstrate notability for the topic at this time. As such, the article will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:59:30, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Vipinahir

edit


Vipinahir (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I already provided the reliable sources as well valid /suitable/ independent sources so please check deeply all the link

You were requested multiple times to properly format your references and you ignored this, just leaving a menagrie of unreliable or primary sources of bare urls at the bottom of the page. You repeatedly after warnings resubmitted without making good faith efforts to improve the article. Per the rejection message: Article has an overly promotional tone that is basically a press release for the college. User has repeatedly resubmitted without good faith efforts to improve the article and clearly has not taken the time or has to the care to review our policies. Since this is clogging up our backlog and since this page is WP:TNT the draft is rejected.
The article has been rejected and as such, will not be considered further. Please take the time and care to read our applicable polices for creating pages. This will help you immensely in creating pages or making edits in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:40, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Badgerbrook86

edit



I'm looking to add and edit several cabaret and comedy prominent figures into Wiki over the next few months. I've started with Bernie Dieter who is currently one of the biggest touring cabaret artists but yet to have an article on here.

It would be great to have someone check over the revised article with the changes I've made.


Badgerbrook86 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Badgerbrook86: hi there. Your changes certainly are an improvement, though it still reads as somewhat promotional to me. One suggestion is that we don't generally do reviews like that (just listing particularly positive lines from the various reviews) - I'd suggest two facets on it. Format wise, take a look at some other articles in the same general field that are reasonably long. See how they handle their critical reception/reviews sections. If reviews are generally positive but have some common negative or concern, give that. If there are some more mixed, or even negative, reviews that are in reliable sources, include them.
The "Little death club" section has three lines on the plot, and then 9 about how successful it's been. Coupled with the fairly long positive review section, it's rather disproportinately pro-Bernie then actually summarising the subject matter.
This isn't a full review, just a few things that jumped out at me Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:35, 15 April 2020 review of submission by ImPritamShaw

edit


ImPritamShaw (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImPritamShaw, do you have a question?
Your draft was declined, as a biography of a person who doesn't meet our general notability guideline. We require subjects to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as without this there would be no way of reliably verifying the contents of the article. This is especially important for articles about living people, due to the potential consequences about false information in our articles. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:15, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Bartelomeus-123

edit


Dear Sir/Madam, it is the first time that I am creating a Wikipedia article and I would like to ask your help. Could you elaborate on the reasons for rejecting the article?

1) Topic not sufficiently notable: are you referring to a) no sufficient coverage in the articles referred to or b) not enough reference articles? 2) Submission contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia: could you further clarify? Other streaming protocols such as HLS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming), MPEG-DASH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP) and WebRTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC) also have a Wikipedia page

Looking forward to your feedback. Once obtained, I'll take it into account to further update the Wikipedia article.

Thanks Bartelomeus-123

Bartelomeus-123 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:40, 15 April 2020 review of submission by EmmaOldenkamp

edit


Hello, I have gone in and re-edited the document to omit any advertorial language, leaving only factual information. Can you please re-review this and let me know if the article is still unacceptable, and if so, why? We have been trying to have our brand listed on Wikipedia for some time now and would love to rectify this soon! I appreciate it. EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC) EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "list brands" on Wikipedia, we have articles about notable subjects. Undeclared paid editing is a breach of the terms of use that you have to agree to abide by when you edit here, and we take editing in areas where you have a personal or professional interest very seriously. If you edit the page again now that you have been notified of these issues, you may be blocked. The draft was correctly rejected it is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:06, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Thecorporateidentity

edit


Hello,

I am just wondering how I could get my draft Julian Michael Carver to become a live article. How many credible sources would I need? I have found other authors on wiki with much less sources, sometimes with just sources to just their own website. Any advice?

Thecorporateidentity (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other stuff exists; other inappropriate articles existing does not mean yours can, too. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Feel free to point out these other articles; we can only address what we know about.
Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:27, 15 April 2020 review of draft by 2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5

edit


Hi there. I wanted to know whether Companies House can be used as a source of information about professional positions held and date of birth?

I also wanted to query this bit of feedback from the original submission of this draft article: "a lot of the verbiage is copied from other biographies or original research". This is not true, as I have written this article myself, but I don't know how to prove it!

There was also the following comment on the first draft: 'The early life and education section is completely unsourced and seems to be copy-pasted or closely paraphrased from somewhere'. The second part of this is not correct - again, I wrote this text from scratch. However, I don't know how to source date and place of birth, details of early life etc., as they are simply not published anywhere. Part of the problem is that the subject of this article is a psychoanalyst, still living, and analysts are generally very protective of their privacy and personal details, due to the work they do with patients. This means I can't provide published sources for these more private details, even though they are absolutely factual. Could you help me with this problem?

I also don't understand this comment: 'a lot of the writing portrays Britton in a positive light with unsourced random supporting quotes'. I am revising the text and trying to take out anything that seems too positive and not neutral enough, but I don't see what 'unsourced random supporting quotes' refers to in the original draft. I have provided references for every quote I have used.

2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig Copyvio shoes that 77.9% of text is copied from https://psychoanalysis.org.uk/our-authors-and-theorists/ron-britton Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:29, 15 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Simon Aronsson

edit


Hi there,

I'm trying to get the k6 article through for creation, but keep getting it rejected. The article has both scientific references and references from notable sources (like GitLab), yet it gets rejected?

Please advice.

Best regards, Simon

Simon Aronsson (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:47, 15 April 2020 review of submission by CRZ Clintzy

edit

It is a good book and I want the world to see it and review it

CRZ Clintzy (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is not a forum to distribute books. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:23, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Juliemb54

edit


Could someone help me understand why an article I created was sent to draft, then declined by the same editor? I have 23 reliable sources cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fobazi_Ettarh

Juliemb54 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juliemb54. On Draft:Fobazi Ettarh I've explained some problems with the cited sources, which I hope helps you understand why it was draftified and declined. Contrast the draft with your earlier works, such as Star Montana and Harmonia Rosales. Note how certain sources in those articles are used over and over throughout the article - they support numerous statements about the subject. That suggests they contain a depth of information about their subjects that is absent from the sources cited by the draft. Perhaps it is too soon for an encyclopedia article about Ettarh.
From your editing history, I surmise that you are part of the galleries, libraries, archives, and museums community, have participated in one or more edit-a-thons, and may be interested in addressing systemic bias in Wikipedia content. Creating biographies in under-represented categories is useful and important work, but is not the only way to improve the encyclopedia. You may wish to save a copy of your draft on your computer, set it aside for a while, and explore other facets of Wikipedia.
If you've been involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, you might want to graduate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green. If you have online access to sources out of reach of the general public during lock-down, you may be able to add missing references in the spirit of 1Lib1Ref. Or, within the bounds of fair use, you may be able to share through the Resource Exchange a portion of a source that another editor needs. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that lead to many other ways to contribute. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:56, 15 April 2020 review of draft by TealTortoise

edit


I think that my subject meets the criteria for notability on the following grounds:

Nomination for a significant award: British MBE The subject has been featured in at least three national media outlets over a period of over 10 years (for a living subject)

I'd appreciate some assistence with how to improve the 'Neutral Point of View' requirement in the article. Please join me on the talk page.

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading around some more I can see that there are issues with adverts - I've got no personal connection with the subject of the article - I stumbled upon her and thought it was really cool to see a high-profile plumber. TealTortoise (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article to remove as much fluff as possible. I also agree she is notable enough for an article, would love to see the article expanded. I have no dog in the game here either, she just seems like an interesting person for an article and she does appear to be notable to me! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:32, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Royalty clothings

edit


Royalty clothings (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising, Wikipedia is not for promoting your business. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:52, 15 April 2020 review of submission by AviCicirean

edit


AviCicirean (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AviCicirean, do you have a question to ask?
Your draft was rejected as it was clearly an advert for an event.
We have neutrally written articles based on what reliable sources have written about a topic, not adverts based on what businesses say about themselves.
If we just hosted what businesses said about themselves, it would just become an advertising site. We would find that after a week we would have no readers left, making the website somewhat useless. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:33:55, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Smithstella2001

edit


Stella Smith (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_April_15&oldid=985271287"