Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 25 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 27 >
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 26

[edit]

00:39, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Monetbaer

[edit]

I am trying to publish this page on Adam Lynn and I think the submission was declined because it appeared that I had a financial stake. I would love help updating/editing this so that it complies with Wikipedia's terms and does not come across as biased. Thanks! Monetbaer (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monetbaer: No, it was declined because you have uncited claims in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:36, 26 November 2024 review of submission by ShrimpInAHotTub

[edit]

There’s a box around the “Size” section and I don’t know how to remove it ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShrimpInAHotTub I've fixed it for you - there was an extra space before the text, causing it to display as code. I've also cleaned up the references. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 26 November 2024 review of submission by 118.221.204.69

[edit]

ㅁ 118.221.204.69 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sources were provided in the draft, nor does Google provide any clarification, at least as a discrete, named entity in itself. It just looks like a long sequence of amino acids. Assuming the name itself isn't a joke because of it's length (I would imagine if this were real, the fairly standard abbreviations would be used), sources have to be provided for an article to exist, and nobody that has edited this draft over the last three years have provided any such sourcing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 26 November 2024 review of submission by WWWedit

[edit]

My submission was rejected, and I completely understand and agree with the decision. It read more like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. One of the challenges is that solid, documented sources about communal ovens in Morocco are not readily available, as these traditional facilities are deeply woven into local communities and often lack systematic documentation. However, we have to start somewhere, and in many cases, we must rely on oral histories—accounts from older generations who lived through and witnessed these traditions firsthand. For instance, Farrane Mama is not just a communal oven but a cultural monument, and its story deserves to be documented for future generations. What do you suggest is the best way to go with this one. Thanks. WWWedit (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here require sources, and there's no way around that, so it'll be nearly impossible to find an article if sources can't be found. If that is the case, I would suggest that if you would like to spread awareness of this sort of thing, writing about it on your own website is a great way to get people to read about it. And if the topic further interests researchers who happen to read your page, perhaps some will produce more written research that will someday be the basis for an article here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Ngiphondims

[edit]

I'm a bigginner Ngiphondims (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific question? If it's about your WP:AUTOBIO, you've provided no sources that come close to establishing that you're notable, in Wikipedia's sense. In fact, it looks like you took a basic template and then ignored half of the template, leaving things like "citation to reliable source, print or e, goes here" and "Important book to know about" in the draft. This draft was rejeccted, meaning that it will not be reconsidered at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Ghaloit1983

[edit]

as i am new to all these and want to contribute to wikipedia, but as i know about my topics and i am well sure for the information i shared about "Asian Education Group". but still the rejections happening again and again. Still i am eagerly exited to know the sugestions and need help to publish my first article successfully. Ghaloit1983 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaloit1983, your draft has no complete sentences. It tells us almost nothing about the topic. It fails to establish that the topic is notable. It bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. It is more like a business database entry, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you work for the Asian Education Group, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
The draft was declined twice and now rejected, this means it will not be considered further. Literally the entire content of the article was "Asian Education Group, Noida, UP, India. Established in November 1986, Owned by Dr. Sandeep Marwah, Founder Film City, Noida, UP, India". Wikipedia is not a directory of things that exist. This is an encyclopedia which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable organization or business.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it isn't the only or even best way someone can contribute. We have millions of articles, most of which need work. It is highly recommended that new users first spend much time to get experience and knowledge of how Wikipedia operates by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as using the new user tutorial. It's possible to be a succssful editor and never write a single new article. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the valuable inputs, surely i will try to write new articles with keeping these points in mind. Ghaloit1983 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:54, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Talosofficial2

[edit]

Hello sir! i need help because i am keep getting rejected what can i do to fix it ? i fixed the part of advert and added Reference Talosofficial2 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Talosofficial2: you have not been rejected, but your draft has.
I'm afraid your experience is rather typical for people who come to Wikipedia and immediately try to do the most challenging task there is for newcomers: to create a new article. It's like somebody picking up a tennis racket for the first time, and immediately entering a major competition, or having your first violin lesson and trying to give a public recital: not only don't you know how to do it, you probably won't even understand the feedback you get.
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.
My quick summary of how to create an article:
  1. Look for sources which are reliable, independent, and have significant coverage of the subject. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates. Ignore anything based on a press release or interview with the subject or their associates. Ignore anything which is on social media, forums, wikis (including Wikipedia). Ignore anything self-published, or published by an unknown or vanity press. Ignore anything that does not mention the subject. Ignore anything which does not have at least a few paragraphs about the subject. Ignore anything where those few paragraphs about the subject are obviously copied from the subject's biography or website. See WP:42 for more details.
  2. If you do not have at least three sources that meet all those requirements, then give up: you are wasting your time trying to create this article.
  3. If you do have three or more sources, then forget everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. Some of what they say might be trivial and not appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and you can leave those out. But make sure that you don't leave anything out just because you disagree with it.
ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand everything. I fixed all the issues that caused my submission to be rejected. However, I was blocked from resubmitting because:
Submission rejected on 26 November 2024 by KylieTastic (talk):
This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Talosofficial2 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Talosofficial2: that's not a question; was there something you wanted to ask?
But yes, you're right, this draft has been rejected, which means resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its a question what does it mean with:
This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Talosofficial2 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Talosofficial2: it means that even after multiple reviews, the draft provides no evidence that the subject is notable, and it will therefore not be considered further. For most subjects notability is evidenced by citing multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, and have provided significant coverage of it. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a very new venture and it is way too soon for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is for subjects that are already notable, this looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote. The site does not even have it's own domain just what appears to be a free hosting sub domain. It has six basic blog posts and claims only "23 Developers Already Onboard". As the site links to what appears to be your YouTube channel I am also assuming this is an undeclared Conflict of interest. KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Deathfrog10

[edit]

I really want this to be posted Deathfrog10 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have provided 0 sources despite writing a lot and after three declines. Therefore, it's been rejected and won't be considered any further. Additionally (see also the comments on that draft), its not written in the format that readers would expect. JuniperChill (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Emmasaltbox

[edit]

Hi, my article was turned down because the listed citations were linked with the topic (Lexercise). However, I don't believe this to be true. I found external, third-party writeups of the topic. Why was this denied? Thanks, Emma Emmasaltbox (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmasaltbox: the sources are blogs and the like, quite possibly sponsored or some form of churnalism. I don't think any of them are fully independent, and they certainly don't come across as particularly reliable. I'd say this was declined correctly.
What is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually came across Lexercise through one of these blogs and have since used their free testing. I do think these third party reviews should not cause a denial of the page based on a guess that they might be connected, especially since there are no affiliate links on the pages or anything that would point to this being the case. Emmasaltbox (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Emmasaltbox: it doesn't matter whether they are independent or not: Blogs almost always fail to be WP:reliable sources, so may not be cited at all, and cannot contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Deathfrog10

[edit]

Can’t submit anymore please help Deathfrog10 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathfrog10: that's correct; this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathfrog10: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, no matter how often you remove the decline/reject notices. No sources, no article, no debate. (You need to actually cite your sources here.) This article also reads like a press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Tepojama

[edit]

Sorry if this is a silly question but can someone tell me if I need to do anything to clean up the formatting of my references or if they're good as-is? Thank you! Tepojama (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should be formatted in accordance with WP:REFB, instead of just a Bare URL. JuniperChill (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 26 November 2024 review of submission by JohnHapi

[edit]

Why can’t my page get accepted to the Wikipedia Article? I have sources of pictures, ancient-medieval paintings, ancient-medieval art works, statues, 16th-19th century art works, many cultural relics, historical objects stored in museums, historical clothes stored in museums, modern art works portrayal of the historical past, and many more. I study China-NorthEast Asia History for many years. I will send it in the MiaoFuk Wikipedia. MiaoFuk is a clothing very similar to HanFuk (HanFu on Wikipedia) and it’s also has GiJzoang/QiZhuang clothings (there is a QiZhuang Wikipedia) MiaoFuk is a Chinese clothing style worn by another ethnicity. I have a lot of sources, I will just send it in later. Chinese-NorthEast Asia History is not really taught in the United States and that’s okay because I can send in more works. Wikipedia has a lot of American History compared to any other Worldwide Histories because it’s an American invention. JohnHapi (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnHapi you had six oppotunities to include sources yet you didn't, and the draft was rejected as a result. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for butting here uninvited, but I think I may be able to help out here.
First of all "MiaoFuk" or "Miao Fuk" doesn't appear to a word in English. It appears to be an idiosyncratic transliteration of 苗服 - the coda "k" here would it appear to indicate that it's a transliteration from one of the Yue Chinese family of languages.
What I would suggest is that you start a draft Draft:Miao clothing, starting with text like "Miao clothing is the tradition dress of the Miao people..." and references from reliable sources, not your own personal assertion that "I have sources of pictures, ancient-medieval paintings, ancient-medieval art works, statues, 16th-19th century art works, many cultural relics, historical objects stored in museums, historical clothes stored in museums, modern art works portrayal of the historical past, and many more."
I hope this may assist you. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:15, 27 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_26&oldid=1260666964"