Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 6 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 8 >
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.


March 7[edit]

05:57:48, 7 March 2020 review of submission by 2409:4073:407:87A3:A5D2:149D:F793:FEA2[edit]

The decline template says: 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

She satisfies WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC, subject has significant coverage from reliable sources that is independent of the subject. Another article written by myself (Abhirami Suresh) successfully passed review and I was even complimented. Actually, Amrutha is more notable than Abhirami and has more coverage than her. I tried talking this (now archived) to the reviewer, but did not received a reply. BTW, I did have used few primary sources (interviews) as well but those mainly goes for citing her personal details rather than things that establish her notability. What do you think ? 2409:4073:407:87A3:A5D2:149D:F793:FEA2 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INN Sulfurboy (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, OK, keep that aside. What if it is independently analysed ? 2409:4073:20C:64CD:8DDB:66E0:2B55:D7A6 (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't analyzed it. I was pointing out the fallacy in you attempting to bring in another article's notability to compare to this one. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is said in the decline template If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. I came here because I did not got a reply from the reviewer, who now archived it. I can improve a draft only if a reviewer gives feedback on what to improve or what was the issue at the first place. And I don't think this reviewer is qualified enough to review drafts, because when I checked his contributions, out of 44 articles created 2 were deleted within the last 7 months through WP:AFD and WP:PROD, and BLP articles created are weak. 2409:4073:20C:64CD:8DDB:66E0:2B55:D7A6 (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe people would be more willing to help you if you didn't attack other editors' credibility? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sulfurboy (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wouldn't have done that if he did not insulted me by ignoring a decently worded discussion. No explanation ? It prompted me to check his credibility. 2409:4073:405:3BA6:B4F1:94C3:2F8F:4A34 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-reviewed the draft, checked the sources and I believe it passes GNG. Sources could be better, but plenty of them focus on the subject and have significant coverage. Plus, there's a whole lot of them, so there's no shortage of material to use. I didn't compare it to other articles, for the reason already mentioned above. I can see how the depth of sourcing can be disputed, but I think this falls on the side of notable. I don't know why the original reviewer did not reply to your query and just removed your message or what the history here may be. I understand AfC is frustrating and going through dozens of sources is mind-numbing. Anyway, in my opinion the subject is notable and that's my reason for approval after source check. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being nice to me as expected from a help desk, and big thank you for considering it for re-reviewing. I am happy. 2409:4073:48E:A1FD:6563:FF4E:BAC1:26A9 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:42, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Ltpicard[edit]


Links to sources added for more notability.

Ltpicard (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:46:56, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Johnjacksonblog[edit]

Amschel Rothschild is a public figure, he is a music entertainer who has fans who want to know about him. Please help me with creating this page. Johnjacksonblog (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjacksonblog The draft is a blatant promotional piece for Rothschild("greatest unknown producer of all time") and almost completely unsourced. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for him or in aiding his fans. Wikipedia has articles(not mere "pages") about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, that of a notable person or notable singer. Please read Your First Article to learn more about creating a new article, the hardest task to undertake on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:14, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Aditya belnekar07[edit]

Plz review its a request its abput a public figure aditya belnekar he is indian Entrepreneur he is doing something great and he is verified on many social media sites therefore he must get a wikipedia page Aditya belnekar07 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya belnekar07 Are you Aditya Belnekar? If you are not, you should not be using his name as your username, please change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Regarding the draft, the sources you have offered are completely inappropriate. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable person. Your sources seem to be fluff pieces about Mr. Belnekar or interviews with him, which are not acceptable for establishing notability. Having verified social media accounts is completely irrelevant. Please read Your First Article to learn more about creating an article- which is the hardest task on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:06, 7 March 2020 review of draft by Porrohmann[edit]


I have drafted extensive changes to this article since 2nd January and ensured that all references are to independent sources. Hopefully the draft can now be re-reviewed approved and published? Porrohmann (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porrohmann A lot of the sources seem to be press releases or routine announcements, which does not establish notability(as they really aren't independent sources, even if republished). Please review Wikipedia's definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:37, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Callmeabhisheksingh[edit]


Callmeabhisheksingh (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callmeabhisheksingh, I am assuming you are asking for clarification as to why your article was declined (if not, let me know). Wikipedia articles have to have citations to support the claims in the article. This is particularly important for living people, as material on those pages can be particularly contentious. Citations also serve to help readers (and reviewers of your article) determine whether the subject is notable. To be notable, the subject of the article must be mentioned in multiple independent, reliable sources significantly (that is, not just passing references). I would encourage you to look at other Wikipedia articles (just click the "random article" button on the side for some examples) to learn how to format these citations and your article in general (there are some other formatting problems as well). You might also find Help:Your first article helpful to learn how to write an article. Let me know if you have any other questions or need help in some specific area (after reading these articles). Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Sam-2727 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:44, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Salvadi Actor[edit]


I am creating wiki page for my friend who is upcoming actor in South Indian film industry, Not sure why my article got declined. Could you please help me

Salvadi Actor (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:48, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Amitavinod[edit]

This artist has sufficient articles referencing him as well as had made a debut in a Regional Film (Kannada movie) as a playback singer. This has been recognized on the film's wikipedia page as well. Would appreciate a re-review of the article submitted as I've tried to include as many notable articles. Amitavinod (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amitavinod. No, there is not sufficient coverage of the artist in reliable sources to justify an encyclopedia article. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic.
Multiple articles from the same outlet count as one. The Mangalore Today article is a copy of The Times of India, so it doesn't count as a second source. It also raises the question of whether both are reprints of a press release, which would make them not independent. Radio Idli has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. US India Monitor is a primary source interview with scant independent analysis by the interviewer. Daijiworld.com is a passing mention, not significant coverage. The artist may become notable as his career progresses, but at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:14, 7 March 2020 review of draft by Mark98404[edit]


I had a question regarding my submission - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ridango It says the following: "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 on the notability of organizations and companies). 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."

Since I'm new to Wikipedia, then what exactly should I improve to get the article published? All the references I've added are legit websites. For example the http://ceec.uitp.org/estonian-startup-ridango-wins-global-award-its-ticketing-solution - it's a legit source, published by the International Association of Public Transport. https://www.baltictimes.com/estonian_co_ridango_brings_contactless_bank_card_payments_into_public_transport_in_sweden/ is a website aggregating information about anything related to Baltic States. Could you please clarify what's wrong with those references? What references exactly am I missing? The communication of those rejection messages could a bit more clearer, so it would be more easily understandable.

Mark98404 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark98404 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark98404. The Baltic Times piece you refer to is a reprint of the company's blog post, so it isn't independent, and is worthless for demonstrating notability. Ridango is a member of UITP, so what UITP writes about them isn't really arms length. Also, most industry awards, such as the Transport Ticketing Global Awards, are of little or no consequence to an encyclopedia.
Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult tasks a new Wikipedian can undertake. The encyclopedia has very little appetite for articles about businesses, especially privately held ones described as startups. Realistically, there's nothing you can do to get the article accepted, the company simply isn't notable. There are many easier and more beneficial ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you want to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:11:40, 7 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Moonlandingwasahoax[edit]


I need help with editing the article above. I may put it up for deletion because I cannot find any secondary sources that back it up. I also do not have much time to do in-depth research. Obviously, I can’t put my personal knowledge because I was told to “forget everything I know and use sources.”

Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moonlandingwasahoax. The essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice makes recommendations about how to write about schools. School districts are different, but there should be some carryover. Three examples of good articles about school districts are: Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District, Klein Independent School District, and School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen. They may give you ideas about what to cover and what kind of sources to look for. I imagine The Daily Mining Gazette has covered major events in the history of the district, such as the opening of new schools and closing of obsolete ones. You may be able to get additional assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools or Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:58, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Suraj rajvardham07[edit]


Suraj rajvardham07 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:18:56, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Krisi31[edit]


Dear reviews,

the rejection reason was "Just blatant advertising". I am not sure how should I improve this article because it is made by analogy to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Conference_on_Analytical_Chemistry_and_Applied_Spectroscopy. Could you please give me some advice?

Than you very much! Best regards

Krisi31 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, the Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy article is also blatant advertising and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:34, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Fartsmcdoogle[edit]


Fartsmcdoogle (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) What does "diamb not shown to be needed"? Unclear how to address this feedback[reply]

@Fartsmcdoogle: If there's only one person with that name on Wikipedia, then the disambiguation is not necessary. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_March_7&oldid=985275901"