Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 17 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 19 >
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 18

[edit]

01:49, 18 November 2024 review of submission by SleepyCat

[edit]

I've updated my references as instructed, why can't I pass? SleepyCat (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources just aren't by and large very useful. The first three aren't about Gong Rujing, but simply expressing Gong's opinion about a subject related to her company. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that being named a Young Global Leader by the non-profit is a good source, that's still an incredibly thin article. Not much else has been presented for Gong's notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepyCat, your goal is to demonstrate that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Since Gong is a person, you can use either WP:NPERSON, for people (there are subcategories you may also want to look into), or WP:GNG, for general notability. Decide on what criteria you're using, and tailor your sources to that. Make sure all your sources fit the triple criteria in WP:42, and read through WP:BLP for the policy on articles about living people. I know this is a lot; unfortunately, as you're discovering, writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing about a living person is the hardest kind of article. Luckily all the policies and guidelines are clearly laid out, so you can see what you're trying to do and decide whether it's possible to write an article now or whether to wait a bit until there's more suitable sources out there. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:46, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Is there a reference template for creating new entries? I don't know whether the entry I submitted meets the typesetting requirements. Rosebabysu (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: sorry, I don't follow; can you clarify what you mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rosebabysu. A "template" such as you are suggesting would only help with the appearance of the draft, and that is a superficial matter (it is important, but it can easily be fixed if it is not right).
The far more important - and more challenging - part of creating an article is getting the sources right.
Think of it like building a house. The appearance of the house is important - but if you haven't surveyed the site and found that it is suitable for building on, and built the foundations, then it is probably a waste of time trying to build the house.
The equivalent of surveying the site is to find the sources that will establish that Dai Ying is notable in Wikipedia's sense: you need to find at least three sources which
  • are reliably published - not social media, blogs, forums, or "news" sites which publish press releases with no editorial control.
  • are wholly independent of the subject - not written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates, and not based on an interview or press release.
  • contain significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions of them.
If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria, then give up and choose a different subject. If you can, the next step is to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
I haven't attempted to get translations of your Chinese language sources, but the two in English only mention Dai Ying in order to quote him. These are useless for establishing notability.
More generally: 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. I am aware that you created your account more than a year ago, but you have made only27 edits, and most of them are to this draft, so you are still a new editor. ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Moepilled

[edit]

I don't understand what I am doing wrong and why my submission is getting declined, the page includes most publicly available information about Nagomu with sources included. In the notes people said Niconico and Twitter, etc are not reliable sources, but I don't understand what they mean by that, and they removed the external links even though I thought that was for Social Media's and stuff (I based it off of Kikuo (musician)'s page). I am also neurodivergent and struggle to understand a lot of stuff on Wikipedia and what people mean, so please explain simply. Thank you in advance Moepilled (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moepilled: the sources cited in this draft are of very poor quality. Take Twitter as an example: I can send out a tweet right now saying that the Moon is made of cheese (and that wouldn't be anywhere near the craziest tweets sent out today!). That doesn't make it so, and you shouldn't use my tweet as evidence that it is. We only accept sources that can actually be trusted to be correct in what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, it's Tweeted by the person who the page is about Moepilled (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moepilled: okay, but that doesn't make it any more reliable. Forget my earlier Moon example. I can instead tweet to say that I'm the king of Atlantis. Would you trust that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people exaggerate or lie about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moepilled, perhaps you would find WP:42 helpful - this is our 'golden rule' for sources and goes into some detail (with links) about what you're looking for. In short, you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This means:
  • the source must be mostly or entirely about your subject;
  • the source must be from a place that is known to report factually and truthfully, that has an editor and fact-checkers, and that doesn't take payment in exchange for reporting (there's a list of sources at WP:RSPSS to look over, with information about whether we think they are reliable);
  • the source must not be connected to your subject (themself, their friends or family, their employer or employee, and so on are all connected).
All of those things must be true if you want to use something as a source. The musician's Twitter would fail 'reliable' (people can tell lies on Twitter) and 'independent' (the person tweeting is the subject).
If you want to look at good articles for musicians, try this list of Featured Articles - they are the best of the best and you can safely base a draft on them. The article you used as your example may not be a good article, but these will definitely all be good. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 18 November 2024 review of submission by 128.40.53.141

[edit]

I need help on how to correct the citations on the draft page for Bart please. Can you show me what I need to do to fix the citations, thanks. 128.40.53.141 (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I think your citations look okay - I think the reviewer means that you need evidence to show that Vanhaesebroeck is notable as a professor/academic. The criteria you need to meet will be laid out at WP:NPROF (click that for a link), so see if you can find sources that match the information there. Does that help? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the person has to be notable. I will try again to add further references. 99.224.174.192 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 18 November 2024 review of submission by 99.224.174.192

[edit]

I am not understanding which ones of the references are not properly mentioned. Thanks for help in advance. 99.224.174.192 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, not one of your sources is relevant to establishing that Hopkins meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Most of them do not even mention Hopkins, and the two that do are written by him, and so not independent.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and been published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking - and almost nothing else.
It seems to me that you have not cited a single source of that nature. Please see WP:42 for more information.
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) 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Itsmeblondie90

[edit]

Hi, curious as to why this submission was rejected. Could you clarify and maybe make a recommendation as to what could improve the article? Thanks. Itsmeblondie90 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have collated a list of events(some very minor) related to Ferris Wheels, but offered no reliable sources to indicate this is a distinct topic. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Arched763

[edit]

Why does it keep getting deleted Arched763 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you keep spamming it, @Arched763. Further spam drafts will lead to your account being blocked. qcne (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Jessica3801

[edit]

I was curious about the reason Draft:LegitTayUpdates was turned down? It says to check What wikipedia is not, which the page does not appear to violate. The comment about it being an unidentified individual isn't clear to me either, I didn't see anything anywhere about a lack of pseudonym being a requirement for pages. The incident that made her famous has enough coverage in my opinion to fulfill GNG as she is consistently still referred to and was discussed in scholarly articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and she did a lot of activism after the event that also received significant coverage. She seems to pretty clearly pass GNG, albeit pseudonymously. Are there edits that can be made that would lead to it getting approved? Jessica3801 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page, as you are editing about the Israeli-Arab conflict, a topic area with its own special rules. Those rules mean that, if your draft was accepted, you could not edit it until your account is extended-confirmed(30 days old with 500 edits). 331dot (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessica3801: To expand on what 331dot says above, I generally recommend new users stay away from any topic area listed at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions, as the situation in them is so bad that it both ill-represents Wikipedia and is likely to draw unwanted (negative) attention towards yourself from more established partisans in them. (The Arab-Israeli conflict is so unbelievably toxic to work in that there's been four separate tries to break the back of the disputes over it, with a fifth being drafted up as we speak.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what others said above, but still this individual appears to meet WP:GNG. I suggest resubmitting, making sure to edit with extra care. Perhaps @Tesleemah can explain better. Ca talk to me! 02:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Ca for the ping, the individual does not appear to meet GNG with Indepth Research. Most websites are interview granted by the subject such as this and this and this And to buttress the point made by @331dot and @Jéské Couriano, There should be clarity when writing about contentious topic and especially for a new editor, this is why I declined the draft. The topic is also ambiguous and requires caution, I feel @Jessica3801 is too new and not ready to bear the weight yet. I'm open to more discussion and opinion about the decline going forward. Tesleemah (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the rules regarding contentious topics, thank you all for the heads up. In terms of GNG however, I do believe that she fits. While it is true that "most websites" are interviews, that's only 7 out of the 12 sources. The remaining 5 are completely independent of Na'ama and focus on her notability and the impact she had in her refusal. I'm willing to work on this article is still allowable because I do believe she meets notability guidelines and should have a page covering her in an encyclopedic fashion, how can I go about making it more clear and sensitive to the contentiousness of the subject? Is there a better place to talk about it like the draft's talk page? I can also work to be eligible to edit such pages if that is necessary for the draft to get published. EDIT: It's actually 6 sources that are interviews, 5 that are independent, and one that's not an interview but is the website of the person who helped design her book. -Jessica3801 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to talk about it here. The draft talk page is not likely to be seen by many other than yourself and reviewers.
I'm not clear on what her impact was. $2000 in fundraising was attributed to her, not a huge sum of money. Some sources briefly mention her as having some sort of impact on a subset of internet culture, I'm not sure what that is. It doesn't seem like others refused to join the IDF in solidarity with her, or that her refusal has impacted the war in some way. (one source noted that 1% of people refuse to join so it's not unheard of). If you do want to resubmit this I would suggest removing everything cited to an interview, then maybe the other stuff will be clearer. I sort of agree with the others here in that I would personally set this aside until you are extended-confirmed. Nothing will happen to the draft for six months(and even if deleted due to inactivity, it can be restored). 331dot (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, that like the others, I'm also unconvinced of the notability. The sources that are all not interviews are basically just covering the same thing in slightly different matter from a few days in April 2019. This article just feels extremely WP:1E and I don't think it would survive a trip to AFD. This is another reason to hold off on this article; if it ended up in AFD, you wouldn't be able to participate in the discussion while a non-ECP editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 18 November 2024 review of submission by ZAKKALLU

[edit]

this is my biography ZAKKALLU (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 18 November 2024 review of submission by X4VIER.OneTap

[edit]

to make it better pls X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Simojibourex

[edit]

Iedit Simojibou is artists and developer Simojibourex (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Simojibourex, you are not Wikipedia:NOTABLE. qcne (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 18 November 2024 review of submission by WilNik

[edit]

Can you please specify what sources are missing in the article?

Thanks a lot, WilNik WilNik (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell how useful your sources are, because you give only a URL, and in most cases it points to the top level. Please see WP:REFB.
The purpose of a citation is for a reader to be able to say "Oh that's an interesting piece of information. I wonder if it's correct?" and be able to locate the cited source and see "Oh yes, this author, published by this reputable publisher, says that, so I can probably trust it". ("Oh, that was said by some random person on Twitter: I probably can't trust it"). Most of your citations don't help a reader do that - and much of the information in your draft is not cited to a source at all.
Please see WP:42 for information about what most of your cited sources should be.
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) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_18&oldid=1259234703"