Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< February 14 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 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.


February 15

edit

10:30:12, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Pat34552

edit

sir plz see this https://mr.wikipedia.org/s/4fto https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=jVLCcagAAAAJ&hl=en https://www.esakal.com/sci-tech/sachin-lokapure-gains-75-patents-194214 https://www.etvbharat.com/marathi/maharashtra/state/sangli/sachin-lokapure-have-a-75-petant-and-his-name-is-in-limka-and-india-book-of-record-1/mh20190601142150560 https://lokmat.news18.com/maharastra/techonology-sangali-petent-man-special-report-update-mhkk-383981.html https://www.jaimaharashtranews.com/sangli-phunsukh-wangdu-achieves-75-petant/?fbclid=IwAR2McMewBPuiCqSBb95xBncjLAbfS2hCqLXvJRvkTE1gNAy23ktdEnBl940

this is notable Pat34552 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat34552. It isn't clear why you are directing reviewers to the Marathi Wikipedia. Each language version operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Marathi Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also, the existence of a Marathi article does not mean it should exist, it may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it. If you meant it as a reference, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because it is user-generated content.
The Google scholar link shows a low h-index and a number of citations that is unremarkable in pharmaceutical chemistry. It does not show that he is a highly cited academic. The popular press is generally unreliable for scientific reporting. If you wish to argue that the news links are reliable in this context, they are nevertheless variations on one story, so count as only one source.
It would be unusual for an assistant professor to be notable. Having been granted patents does not make a person notable. In most cases it isn't even significant enough to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Rejection is meant to be final, to communicate that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. To change anyone's mind you would need to do much more than assert "this is notable". You would need to present clear and compelling evidence that the topic meets the professor test or the general notability guideline, something the references you've provided fail to do. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:57, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Thinkthank2

edit


Please Advice on how I can move this article on the main space. Thinkthank2 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you cannot, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:21, 15 February 2020 review of submission by PurushottamKafle

edit


PurushottamKafle (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PurushottamKafle, The draft has been deleted so we cannot help you. Do you have a specific question? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:22:56, 15 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 81.106.105.222

edit


2020 is missing its page about Japanese television. I tried adding it to the '2020 in television by country' section but there was no sign of anyone uploading the '2020 in Japanese television' page. Can you please add the '2020 in Japanese television' page with events, programs (Both new and ending), milestones and deaths to the 'television' category? Thank you.

81.106.105.222 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:18, 15 February 2020 review of submission by G Spot TV

edit


G Spot TV (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@G Spot TV: Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:00, 15 February 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson

edit


John BG Johnson (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Is anyone available to help me finish this article and be published correctly?

As above, the draft has been rejected as not notable, the fact that you keep removing the rejection notice will not change this.Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:03, 15 February 2020 review of submission by IamTRoy4

edit

This new Sports channel by Lex Sportel has no wikipedia, so I thought about creating one, but after creating the page, it got declined but I've given sources. IamTRoy4 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC) please look in to the page and publish it as soon as possible.[reply]

IamTRoy4, It needs more than one source. Three is usually the bare minimum, and they must be of good quality. Also, it needs prose, not just lists. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:08, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Attih Soul

edit


Hello! My name is Attih Soul and I'm writing because my request to publish my artiste profile was rejected. I would love a review and guidelines/advise on how to arrange my publication such that it doesn't get rejected again. Thanks as I await your response.

@Attih Soul:The article had no sources and no structure. I recommend you read an existing good article, such as Beyoncé, to get a feel for what an article should look like. You may also wish to read the easy referencing guide. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:43, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters

edit


The Toven draft

1.The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable


2. Most of the album/works were covered in an attached article from a proclaimed notable media outlet San Diego reader. The info was published 2 years ago by the outlet. Then mysteriously, on the day The Toven draft was created the outlet deleted the entire page. This appears to have been a preventative measure. How should a Wiki volunteer respond?


3. Most of the early notable works of The Toven are connected to wiki page Jayo Felony and his Underground album which is now being redirected after having created The Toven draft. How should a wiki volunteer respond?

Spiritletters (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Spiritletters (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritletters, So the main issue you have here is circular references. We don't cite other Wikipedia pages within Wikipedia pages, because you can end in a situation where two Wikipedia pages cite each other and its unclear where the material originally came from. You need to remove all the Wikipedia citations and replace them with citations to the original sources. In terms of #2, I find it unlikely that the San Diego reader happened to just delete the article. Perhaps it moved to a new URL. You might also be able to find an archived version of the page. In the future you can prevent that by using a website archiver, see Help:Archiving a source. With regards to #3, the Jayo Felony page still exists. His albums were redirected because they weren't notable by themselves, just the artist was. Nothing more needs to be done. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! Please expand further if your able

Source links

1.The Jayo Felony Underground album was published for years. Why was it redirected only yesterday after I referenced it as a source for The Toven draft? can I use the original sources to that page? If so, where are they as access is no longer available due to the redirect.

San Diego reader source

2. It is actually indisputable. The San Diego reader article in The Toven draft was accessable and normal until yesterday as it was deleted.Volunteers went to the link before it was deleted. Here is the deleted link https://www.sandiegoreader.com/bands/toven-the/. We have proof. my question is what should a volunteer do when and if a media outlet decides to play musical links? I understand that this is rare but it definitely occurred with the San Diego Reader and the sole particular author of their "Blurt" column who happens to control their "local band" section. I wont say his name at this time. Spiritletters (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many hundreds of artists listed here [1] strange that Toven has been removed, it was your only possible reliable source and we need at least three independent reliable sources before the draft could be accepted. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and your draft is still only sourced to Wikipedia so will not even be considered. The artist needs to pass WP:MUSICIAN have you read that? Which part of the criteria do they pass? Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:28, 15 February 2020 review of draft by FeldA1

edit


My Wikipedia article was denied I would like to get some clarification on the reason given. Particularly I would like to get clarification on what is meant by my references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Is this implying that I need sources that are unrelated to the topic but still prove the importance of said topic? I am a little confused by the wording. FeldA1 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeldA1: Each source used for notability has to satisfy the criteria -- 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) in-depth. If any is not true, then the source is not enough for notability. Several such sources would establish notability. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:14, 15 February 2020 review of draft by Mknappssa

edit


Hello. I'm struggling to understand how to fix this article. I've done my best to write it from a neutral point of view. I'm citing many external sources that are not published by the school. The school is notable in that it's the only school in Georgia working to follow the Sudbury school methods. I am not able to tell the difference between this Sudbury School of Atlanta page and other Sudbury school pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Free_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Sudbury_School. I could really use some guidance on how to resolve any issues in the page to get it published. Thank you for any help you can provide!

Mknappssa (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mknappssa You were given an explanation to this on your draft- the sources you have offered are not independent of the subject, and also barely mention the school, if at all. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. High schools are usually notable, but there must be sources.
Beware in citing other similar articles- see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. Other similar articles existing does not mean yours is okay too. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you for the response.
I think I am mostly struggling with the independent part because I don't see how these are not independent. One is CNN, another is a podcast, another is an organization related to self-directed education and none of these are affiliated with the school. Could you help me understand how those are not independent?
I CAN see how the references are not exclusively about the school (except for the CNN video), but instead only feature the school or someone from the school.
I do recognize that each article is reviewed on its own merit, so I wouldn't expect to be approved because another article was. I just see schools like this school published with the same quality of sources, and I see schools in the same neighborhood as this school (one just down the road) published with literally zero references on their page. This is just my first time trying to publish a Wikipedia article, and it's frustrating :-(.
Thanks again. Mknappssa (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mknappssa If an article has no references at all, it should be nominated for deletion. Is the CNN video about the school itself, or the education model of the school(two different things)? The comments of the president of the board are not an independent source; most of the other sources just cite the mention of the school, and do not have significant coverage of the school itself. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_February_15&oldid=985274380"