Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 19 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 21 >
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 20[edit]

01:35, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Nmotamedi[edit]

Hi!

I may not be understanding the notability aspect of the feedback I have received on this page. I have tried to update the references to include more reliable articles, books, and interviews that seem to show notability (one reviewer even said I was getting very close). Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I start my journey into page creation. Nmotamedi (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:44, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:2981:4450:98AE:4F8E:1B77:EA5A[edit]

Why was the submission for this page declined? Any specific reason? How can it be fixed? 2600:1700:2981:4450:98AE:4F8E:1B77:EA5A (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given in the grey box in the decline message on the draft. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Drayden475[edit]

Just looking for help regarding why my article was declined again. I believe I had rectified all issues present, and any help is greatly appreciated. Drayden475 (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drayden475 many of the sources presented are primary sources, which do not help establish notability. Others are only tangentially related, such as the news pieces on the wildfire, which aren't significant coverage and don't help establish notability either. You might want to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:02, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Newtatoryd222[edit]

I’d like to know how I can improve the article. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newtatoryd222: this draft (not yet 'article') has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 2806:1016:D:3B0B:208A:DE4B:CE2:FCBE[edit]

Why not use another wiki dedicated for lost media or something 2806:1016:D:3B0B:208A:DE4B:CE2:FCBE (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be okay. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Gurdas Singh atwal[edit]

i have done changed as mentioned by the staff . but their is no submit option available Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no "staff" here and second, no you didn't. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Tungmatthew14[edit]

Hi there, I drafted an article about an athlete and submitted for publication. I was denied due to this reason: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Can someone elaborate on what makes an athlete notable? The athlete I wrote about had many articles written about her from various sources, including the South China Morning Post, the Hong Kong Tennis Association, and various universities. Further, the athlete has international medal results from well-recognized major games events and has matchups with other notable tennis players. If anyone can give advice on things to add to re-submit. Thank you very much. Tungmatthew14 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tungmatthew14: regardless of the topic, meeting the WP:GNG standard will establish notability. Tennis players can also be notable by satisfying WP:NTENNIS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Bigbossdol[edit]

Hi there I have included a number of references and sources and am confused as to why my page has been rejected again, can someone please give me some tips as to how I can improve my draft. I believe it is well referenced and in a very similar format to similar pages on the same subject please see Craigkelly transmitting station

Would including the "Television transmitter and major relay sites in the United Kingdom" template count as a reference? (Its at the bottom of the Craigkelly page). The Knock More transmitting station is actually listed on this template as a page that does not yet exist, which is why I have attempted to create it Bigbossdol (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbossdol Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article, simply place the title of the target article in double brackets, as I've done here.
Beware in citing other articles that themselves may be problematic, which you might not be aware of- see WP:OSE.
Most of your sources seem to be related to the owner of the tower or the government. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Kissable54[edit]

Hi

Playwrights' studio was declined. They are of course notable enough for a page of their own. 


Kissable54 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: and the evidence for that is where? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@DoubleGrazing: Hello, and thank you. Comments were iteratively resolved, In depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent, refbombing. It is not presumed, Playwrights' Studio is as significant/notable as the many very talented writers (and actors) with pages of their own. ie founder Tom McGraph, who come through their doors as students or early in their career. They have offices on Glasgow's main thoroughfare, a short walk from The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, an internationally recognised school of music and drama, and have worked with many if not all of the best known actors, and published writers for theatre of our generation at all stages of their careers.

For our international readers, since the 1707 act of union of Scotland and England, a situation that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite much wrangling, Scotland is a small country encompassing approximately the northern 3rd of the United Kingdom. Scotland may not be notable in the broader sense but within Scotland the Playwrights Studio is as significant as The Royal Opera House next door, especially within the acting/drama world of Glasgow, and the capital Edinburgh. Writers coming through the studio have had work performed all over the world, from the Edinburgh International Festival of Theatre to London, New York and Berlin.

How do I publish? the resubmit link has gone.
I am unconnected with the subject/genre, and all of the above is verifiable from primary and secondary sources but not directly relevant to the article.Kissable54 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: I was more looking for numbers, as in – which of the (numbered) sources in your opinion demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. If you list the three strongest ones, in your opinion, I'm happy to have a look-see.
The "resubmit link has gone", because this draft has been rejected, not merely declined. After five previous declines the last reviewer must have concluded that no evidence of notability was likely to be forthcoming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: 1,2, and 3 should do the trick. I didnt notice a previous edit broke no 2, an important one, so i have fixed it. Checking the others now. Kissable54 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: 1, 2 and 3 are all primary sources. We need instead to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kissable54 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingApologies I misunderstood primary as no 8, the organisations official website. I have added references from The Scotsman, Herald, and Guardian, that independently support the facts from the other references. A few of the other reference also got broken and I am fixing them now. Kissable54 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: the Scotsman and Guardian articles provide only passing mentions. The Herald piece is a bit better, but still essentially someone from the organisation talking about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I fixed the other references. I also added a few more references from newspapers.
References 1ish, 11, 19, 20, 21, and 16 are good secondary sources from The Performing arts Network Japan, The BBC, The Stage, and The Herald that explore the subject with some depth, and validate most of the statements on the official website,
no 8. 25, 29, and 32 from The Stage, and The Herald provide additional information specific to the subject that is not a passing mention.
No 6 is a single sentance from The Guardian, but an important reference regarding the involvement of the founder.
No 7 from the Guardian is also a brief mention but highlights the sheer scale of the organisations work, 189 new writers, for one staff member.
I am aware it is beginning to look like a ref bomb again and am not a writer so appreciate any advice getting the article published as there is no question the subject is notable enough.
They were founded in 2004 so much of the press surrounding their incorporation has long since been removed, and the majority of current articles discuss individual projects, or writers, not the organisation. Kissable54 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m the sixth editor to assess the article as not not notable. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately some topics just aren’t suitable for Wikipedia no matter how much the author wants them to be. Please accept the decision and move on. Six experienced editors of the project do not all come to the same conclusions without reason. Organisations and companies have a very high bar for acceptance. This one doesn’t meet that bar. Please move on. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta With all due respect I believe you have made a mistake.
I agree the bar is high, as is the standard of Scotlands Playwrights.
My own abilities on the other hand... I have resolved the previous editors comments.
Can you check just two of the references. 20 and 21.
You will see names that might mean nothing to you but are giants of Scottish literature. You must have heard of Liz Lochead and possibly David Greig (dramatist) to name but two.
If better references are still required or there are too many primary references I can work on the article but I don't think it should be rejected. Kissable54 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kissable54, "notability" in the way Wikipedia uses it, essentially comes down to "is there enough independent reliably sourced material published to base an article on?", bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Names of people who have been associated with it contribute zero to this, as notability is not inherited. ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is surprisingly sparse coverage but enough, Check references 20 and 21 first, both independent and reliable, so notable in the way Wikipedia uses it. And notable as working with internationally recognised writers.
I have spoken with a colleague User: Not Even a Mother who will be taking things from here. I have nothing further to add but there are more references, I just don't have the time for this.
Thank you to all the editors who contributed for their kind words and advice. Kissable54 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Stephen Gauci[edit]

Offer Gilboa is the owner of the Challenge Group, an international air cargo group consisting of eight organisations, three of which are airlines. This contribution should help in sharing more information about his career and his achievements. Stephen Gauci (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gauci The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since the rejection, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer.
If you are connected to Mr. Gilboa(you seem to be since you took a picture of him and he posed for you), that must be disclosed, see WP:COI. If you work for him or are otherwise compensated by him, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Catherine Lemieux[edit]

Hi, I need help, please, with this page. There are two major medias only about Rampelotto (ORF and Der Standard) plus one article only about Rampelotto in a reference book by Thames and Hudson. Why isn't that enough to show reliable sources or suitability or notability? Thanks in advance for any kind of help. Catherine Lemieux (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Rampelotto in the "Chair Anatomy" book by Thames and Hudson, about "A comprehensive design resource that reveals how the iconic chairs of the 20th and 21st centurieshave been designed for mass production" written by Orrom Professor for Product and Furniture Design at the Rosenheim University of Applied Sciences in Germany, does not show "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." ? Catherine Lemieux (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ss to wikipedias criterias for notability, Rampelotto has them all. He was b. part of a major exhibition (had a solo show at the MAK in 2012, and was part of the major yearly exhibition of 2022), c. won critical attention (he has won a design price just last year) and d. he is in the permanent collection of the MAK and hofmobilien Depot). I put the linik to these collections, that are transparently displayed online, but the first reviewer would not accept a main museum's page as a source. Catherine Lemieux (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 2620:0:1040:20:CD8:8CEA:9C18:7F98[edit]

Hi there,

I got this feedback on an article I wrote "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes)".

The article was based on other existing players and team members that are already on Wikipedia, and for some of them there is even less coverage, so I'm confused as to why this article isn't suitable. Any insights would be useful to help improve? Here are some examples I mimicked; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emer_Lucey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Joyce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecelia_Joyce 2620:0:1040:20:CD8:8CEA:9C18:7F98 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, and neither should you, as they may have problems of their own. (You should feel free to improve any sub-standard articles you find, or else nominate them for deletion.) We instead go by the currently applicable policies and guidelines. In this case, the relevant guideline is the general notability one WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 68.4.88.199[edit]

Plz accept my draft 68.4.88.199 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not waste other editors' time and and effort with this nonsense. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 20 November 2023 review of submission by TinyPardus[edit]

Rejected for lack of sources when many other lower level Norwegian football clubs have the same and are approved. What specifically is it that I need? Examples: [1], [2], [3] TinyPardus (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined NOT rejected, which means that reviewers think it is likely notable with better sources and see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alright TinyPardus (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Seanhearne001[edit]

There is not enough specific information given as to why this posting is being rejected. I need to specifically understand which area is not being addressed. Also, I used the other facilities Wikipedia entries funded by the US government along with this facility as templates for this entry, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Foundry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Nanoscale_Materials. Their pages appear to be acceptable. Is there a different template that I should use? Seanhearne001 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanhearne001: did you actually read the decline notice, including what's behind each of the links it is pointing to? This draft has been declined (not rejected) for failing to demonstrate that the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This draft cites only primary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 178.204.250.28[edit]

Why are the sources in the article not suitable? The article refers to Radlov, Bunge, Boronin, Lipovtsev. 178.204.250.28 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really comment, and don't want to start working through a large number of sources in a language that I don't read; perhaps you could ask the last reviewer directly what their reasons were? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can I do this? 178.204.250.28 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the most recent decline notice is shown the name of the reviewer, and next to it is a (talk) link to their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Crouch214[edit]

I'm just trying to get some clarification on why my article was denied articles for creation - I'm new to this so I don't really understand much, and I want to get this page published, I just may need some guidance on how to do so. Thank you! Crouch214 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch214 I fixed your link, it needs the "Draft:". Are you associated with the judge? You don't seem to have independent sources with significant coverage of the judge or what makes him important. You make claims about his innovations, but what makes them innovative is lacking. For more clarification, you may ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_20&oldid=1186866864"