Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 3

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< November 2 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 4 >
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.


November 3

edit

04:21, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Xavier Serif

edit


Please explain why this is not considered to be a reliable source:

https://repositorio.umsa.bo/handle/123456789/11306 Xavier Serif (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xavier Serif: has someone said that it's not reliable? I don't think that's even cited as a source in your draft.
But since you ask, this appears to be a dissertation for an undergraduate-level degree, which per WP:THESIS are not considered reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Ahmad87861

edit

i have edited the refrence and make it more notable, please help me to publish it. Ahmad87861 (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmad87861: there is zero evidence of notability in this new draft, either. If a topic isn't notable, there's nothing you can do. If you keep recreating this tendentiously, you may get yourself blocked for spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by notability, there is already a reference link to show the notability? Ahmad87861 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmad87861: as already explained to you the last time you asked, a single source is not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, especially one written by a student of some sort, rather than a professional journalist or music critic. And there is absolutely nothing in this draft to indicate that the subject would be even remotely notable by the WP:MUSICBIO guideline, either.
Not to mention that the draft is unreferenced throughout, so we don't even know if any of it is true.
My advice would be to drop this now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, leme find more sources to show the notability. I'll update the draft soon as i find more reliable sources. Ahmad87861 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Xander du Plessis

edit

What should I change for this page to be submitted? Xander du Plessis (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xander du Plessis: nothing; this has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

edit

Hello, I would like to ask if a person must have an exclusive interview report to prove his or her fame? Rosebabysu (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: what is an "exclusive interview report"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person's "fame" is not relevant- we're looking for notability as Wikipedia defines the word; a person can be famous but not notable. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources, which must be in depth. In this case you are looking for this person to meet the notable creative professional definition or the broader notable person definition.
The awards you mention are meaningless towards notability as the awards lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by PavlovTruth

edit

My family has an entire book on our Russian Heritage. I've translated everything. Please show respect to our legacy. Im signing off forever, God Bless. PavlovTruth (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PavlovTruth: be that as it may, your draft is completely unreferenced, and cannot therefore be accepted. As a bare minimum, you should cite the book you're referring to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entirely unsourced and the MOS:PEACOCK language is overwhelming. Language like "embodying a proud heritage and tradition that represents the grandeur of Imperial Russia" and "the only surviving noble line truly "worthy of the Russian Empire" due to their unwavering commitment to preserving Russian customs, values, and traditions" or "The family’s unique blend of Russian imperial heritage and American frontier spirit has solidified their legacy as a rare bridge between the East and West, embodying both the sophistication of Russian aristocracy and the pioneering resilience of North America" is wholly inappropriate without ironclad sourcing, far beyond a single unreferenced book about the family. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Rsm2324

edit

Can you please advise how can we get the page shown on wikki what should be done Rsm2324 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsm2324: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It presents no evidence, or even suggestion, of notability, and is purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising and zero indication of passing WP:NCORP rejected correctly, there is nothing you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 3 November 2024 review of submission by 98.113.99.90

edit

It was denied and I wish to know why to improve 98.113.99.90 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected, and I've just requested speedy deletion on it. If you wish to write fantasy fiction, please find another platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Harezmli

edit

Hello, first of all, I am curious about the reason why my page was rejected because I am researching the period sources and I also think that I have not done anything against Wikipedia rules. I would be happy if you respond to my message. Harezmli (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Tavantius Qcne (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A draft oddly similar to this was previously rejected, with the draft's creator being blocked as a sockpuppet. Hence, I rejected the draft. In retrospect, rejecting it was probably too harsh. Tavantius (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Shybee24

edit

kindly tell me the reason Shybee24 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure spam, @Shybee24. Qcne (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what?? how??? can you define? Shybee24 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shybee24 See WP:SPAM. Qcne (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by GalacticVelocity08

edit

Hello, my draft regarding this article was recently declined a couple days ago. I completely understand the reason as to why it was denied, however I am unsure on how to proceed. I discussed this with the individual on my talk page, but would like to seek additional guidance here.

The draft was declined due to a previous deletion discussion during late July/early August 2024. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_David). For context, I was not yet on Wikipedia at the time, and this was an entirely different version of the draft.

My draft currently has significant coverage, reliable sources, and in my opinion, notability. While I am aware of and understand WP:OSE, it is quite contradictory that all other drivers at the same level (or lower) have articles, and he does not. I understand that I am the one who has to prove what has changed since the AfD, but I find it a bit unproductive and redundant to wait while there is clear notability. I hope this makes sense and it doesn't sound like I'm whining, but I'm really not sure how to proceed (unless I just have to wait until he enters a higher series). Is the most logical step to bring this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review ?

links to relevant/most series:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Formula_Regional_Middle_East_Championship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Formula_Regional_European_Championship

(notice how other drivers that finished in similar positions all have articles)

link to failed undeletion request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_400#Draft:Zachary_David

(not sure how to hyperlink under this. sorry) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be quite contradictory that all other drivers at the same level (or lower) have articles, and he does not, but it is perfectly possible that this is the correct result, if it happens that independent commentators have chosen to write about them but not about him. (I'm not saying that that is the case, but I'm saying that it could be). His "level" is not relevant. ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the response. For context, the two main websites that publish articles relating to these drivers are feederseries.net and formulascout.com. In the draft, there are articles from both of these websites.
He might not have as much coverage compared to his peers, but I believe that he still has significant coverage. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GalacticVelocity08! Let's see if we can work this out. I'll have a look at some of your sources, and either tell you what's missing or ping the reviewer to see if they'd reconsider (or explain, if I made a mistake). First, though, I'm going to give you my standard spiel about sources, because it seems to help people. You are trying to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards by showing good sources. These sources should meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). All interviews must automatically be rejected as sources of notability, because they're not independent, and that tends to throw people off. It probably seems a bit weird, but this is the consensus editors have come to over years and years of discussion.
So with that in mind, I'm going to look at your first few sources. If they fail any of the triple criteria in WP:42, they don't show notability. This doesn't mean you can't use them for uncontroversial information like his birthday or family's names - but if you can find better sources with the same information, you should use those instead. For a living person, you also need to abide by WP:BLP (biographies of living people rules) so I'll mention that if there's a problem as well.
Source 1, ADAC, is brief biodata - it's not significant coverage.
Source 2, Formula Scout, looks good at a glance - I think this meets WP:42. Good job!
Source 3, TKART, is basically a press release - it's not independent (his employer will naturally want to publicize him and make him sound great).
Source 4, ABS-CBN, is an interview with David - it's not independent.
Source 5, ADAC (the second), also includes an interview - this means it's also not independent.
Source 6, another Formula Scout, is not significant coverage - he's only very briefly mentioned.
Source 7, F4 Championship, specifically labels itself as a press release, so it's not independent.
I hope that helps you sort through the rest of your sources and decide which to keep and which to discard. Remember to prioritize sources that meet WP:42, and get rid of as many that don't as possible! Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help, I was actually unaware about the restrictions on how articles are considered independent. That makes a lot more sense. I'll work to try to find more independent articles that he is the subject of.
Two follow-up question though; I understand that I need to establish notability using independent sources, but am I able to use nonindependent sources for additional details and to help reinforce points? If so, is there a specific proportion of how many sources are needed to be considered notable? (I'm saying this because when looking at other motorsports articles, lots of them use these press release-esque sources. (again I know WP:OSE, just a good reference point for inspiration/precedence)).
Additionally, assuming I'm able to get the draft up to independent notable sourcing, will the AfD impact a future AfC? Just because of the low amount of time and how my declination was phrased, I don't think anyone would want to spend quite a bit of time improving the draft right now if it won't be usable for a couple months. Thank you in advance! GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use non-independent sources for uncontroversial information that he would be the best source for - for example you could use interviews with him to confirm his birthday, parents' names, if he gets married, that kind of thing. Don't worry about using them to reinforce points, though; one good, reliable source saying something is better than a hundred weak sources. Try to minimise your sources, using only the best you can find while still following WP:BLP. If you can't find a WP:42-compliant source for a statement, remove that statement. It might make your draft shorter, but it will increase your chances of acceptance.
The AfD will make a difference - you will want to read over what people said there, and make sure your draft addresses those problems. It looks to me as though most people were concerned that he didn't meet WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, so your draft needs to have some good WP:42-compliant sources to show he's notable. That should be easy if you can find the sources - you already have one, which is a good start. We usually say three rock-solid sources is the absolute minimum, if that helps!
The other thing was the obvious conflict of interest - I have to ask, just to be sure: are you Zachary David, or connected to him? Or are you simply a fan of either him or racing in general? Even if you are him, or connected to him, you are still permitted to create this draft and put it through AfC! We actually encourage people with a conflict of interest to use AfC, so that there can be independent review of the draft before it goes live. If you are connected to him, you would need to declare your conflict of interest, and make sure the draft is good, but given that there was a previous AfD you already want to make sure it's good so that wouldn't be much of an extra weight on you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first two; Got it, thank you. I'll be sure to work on that, and I've already started reviewing my sources. Before I submitted the draft I figured that too many sources would probably be better than too little, but I'm realizing now that it's not really the case.
As for the third point, I have no connection to him nor even a fan. I completely understand why you asked this given the history of the page and the fact my account is new, but it's simply that I noticed someone who doesn't have an article, and who could probably qualify for one. (if you want, you can look at my edit history - i've edited in american timezones and on days that hes raced).
I'll try to resolve the sourcing issues and resubmit it for review soon. Thank you for all the help, the way you've explained it actually makes sense. Apologizes if I sounded a little pushy in the original message, I was just getting a bit frustrated lol. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry at all, this can be a frustrating experience and you've taken feedback well and asked good questions - you're fine! If it helps, writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing one about a living person is the hardest of all. So don't be discouraged; it takes time to get the hang of Wikipedia policies and standards, but there are lots of people who are happy to help out. As long as you listen to advice and read through linked policies, you'll be all good.
I'm glad you understand why I had to ask if you were David - we're usually happy to trust people's word if their actions match up, and yours do. I appreciate you answering clearly and openly! If you need help with assessing sources, or other problems with your draft, just pop back here with questions - or you're welcome to reach me on my talk page if you'd like. There's always someone around to point you in the right direction. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 3 November 2024 review of submission by NicePrettyFlower

edit

The article draft: Chop Kick Panda has been denied for creation because they were no referenced material. But they were actually links in the reference section. I think it is because I did not used the reference section properly. It is only because I am new to adding referenced material, so admin, fix the article draft and it's links in the reference section and then make it public. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to make it but I am new to it. I can't resubmit it now. What should I do. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it's the end of the line for this draft. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your experience is a common one for new editors who attempt the challenging task of creating an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. 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) 22:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news, I can no longer resubmit it. For more information, read the draft or read the latest message about the article on my talk page by @CoconutOctopus. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_3&oldid=1256284093"