Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 3 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 5 >
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.


December 4[edit]

09:01, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Basittali[edit]

Hi Zoglophie,

I have included the initial information along with certain citations and links. My intention was to add more information in subsequent edits, but my submissions have been consistently rejected. Could you please provide guidance on what I should do next? Basittali (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basittali What is your connection to this individual, since you took his picture in his office and he posed for you?
Note that an article previously existed about this man that was deleted per a deletion discussion, and you seem to have not overcome the reasons for that deletion, this is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. He seems to be an ordinary lower-level government official without significant coverage in independent reliable sources as to what makes him notable. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just citizen of Islamabad and being benefited by the now healthcare system. I planned to add the reliable sources after the article is live. I was thinking to invite participants to edit it in their own way. Now i have only option to edit it but not to submit for review. Please guide me what to do now so that i will only submit the final version. Basittali (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basittali Rejected means it is simply not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You are still free to contribute in other ways; as you seem to be interested in Pakistan's healthcare system, I can recommend articles in Category:Healthcare in Pakistan. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Flint314[edit]

Is there a way to get it approved. It describes a new technology, where most of the references are the standard text itself -- and initial articles from industry following news sites reporting on the introduction of the technology. Guidance is appreciated if it can be made acceptable. Flint314 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flint314: this draft has been rejected, which means it's the end of the road. If there are sources which weren't earlier considered, and which satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, then you can appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but based on what you say I'm assuming such sources aren't available? Important to bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost never an early source to cover something new and emerging, as we only summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Elijahwordpress[edit]

Getting a page approved and published Elijahwordpress (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahwordpress: do you have a question you would like to ask? Otherwise I suggest you await the outcome of the pending review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Elijahwordpress (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Kulturvetare[edit]

I have submitted this draft twice. The first round I understood what I needed to correct, but now I really don't. It's something about a source problem. The feedback was so short it didn't make much clear for me.

The sources need to be independent, third party - I get that. But she is an author and a scientist, so almost all sources have references to something she has made - it's the profession.

I will try once more and use another woman scientist from Sweden as a reference page, Emma Frans.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Frans Kulturvetare (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulturvetare: on both occasions, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which means that the sources do not demonstrate how it meets any of the established notability guidelines, mainly WP:GNG. The second reviewer merely referred to the previous decline, saying that the problem (with sources) still remains.
It is possible for authors and scientists to meet a different notability guideline, namely WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC, respectively. In this case, you do not need to show significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent secondary sources. You still do need to support the notability claims with reliable published sources, however. Note also that these guidelines are quite onerous, and meeting them can be difficult; we don't just want to see your assertion that notability is met, but objective evaluation and reliable evidence thereof. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do refer to PubMed - where almost all published research of hers are - but maybe I should list the scientific papers individually? I used this researcher wikipedia site as a reference now, and it is published with even fewer secondary sources: Emma Frans
There is a Swedish Wikipedia page as well: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotta_Borg_Skoglund Kulturvetare (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 4 December 2023 review of submission by MKutera74[edit]

Hello. I wanted to know why this article was rejected? It is in the Polish encyclopedia. I had to create this language version myself because the wiki translator informed me about some external errors. Please help somehow, what about this article now? MKutera74 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 4 December 2023 review of submission by MKutera74[edit]

Hello. I wanted to know why this article was rejected? It is in the Polish encyclopedia. I had to create this language version myself because the wiki translator informed me about some external errors. Please help somehow, what about this article now? MKutera74 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Benraphy[edit]

Why this page is not appearing first when we search Milasha Joseph Benraphy (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Benraphy: because it has not been patrolled by a New Pages Reviewer, so it is not indexed by search engines. Please be patient – there are 12,000 articles waiting to be patrolled. Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 4 December 2023 review of submission by BVECJordan[edit]

Hello sir and respected writer i haved writen the articles of above mentioned page but recently i submitted and it was declined again, citing a reason of not a realiable source please kindly look into my article and help me out as i am a begineer. thank you. BVECJordan (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BVECJordan I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:"). The draft must do more than document the existence of the college and tell its offerings. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about it, showing how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok sir thank you
Can U please tell me more clearly as I did not understand sir
Thank you BVECJordan (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BVECJordan Wikipedia wants to know what others say about the college and what they say makes important- what we call notability(please click to read). Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do here. We usually suggest that new users first edit existing articles about topics that they like, to learn more about Wikipedia. You could also use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Gatilic[edit]

Ok I understand what do you said, but just an ask, is the cites on the text reliable? Gatilic (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of references were to Wikipedia, which should not be used as a source. That's leaving aside that this unfortunate car accident does not merit an article, see WP:NOTNEWS. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Gatilic[edit]

I revised everthing and I think i solved all the problems, please could someone check again? Gatilic (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been rejected, it's like a news article, your only citations are Wikipedia. You need to move on. Cremastra (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 4 December 2023 review of submission by AaliyahCarterMusic[edit]

Trying to get a Biography of a new artist on Wikipedia. What needs to be changed?

-Ryan Russell AaliyahCarterMusic (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AaliyahCarterMusic: The article has a promotional tone and no reliable sources are cited. Furthermore, it is likely that the subject (you) of the article is not notable. To be notable, a subject needs significant, in-depth, 3rd-party coverage, and you have no coverage. It is highly unlikely the article will be published without you gaining more fame and coverage. I'd recommend reading WP:AUTO for more info. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_4&oldid=1189150265"