Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 June 30

= June 30 =

10:28:58, 30 June 2018 review of submission by Like street
Like street (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Double entry - see answer on the following post

10:30:29, 30 June 2018 review of submission by Like street
Like street (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

help me publish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mathematical_solution


 * Hi, Your Draft:Mathematical solution have been reviewed and it has been declined. Do note Wikipedia page need to be written like an encyclopedia instead like an essay. Pls also provide independent and reliable sources to support the content claimed. Please visit WP:Your First Article on the topics on how to write an article in Wikipedia and WP:Referencing for Beginners on inline citation.  Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 13:31:05, 30 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by DagonsSphere
Hey, I was wondering what I can do to get this article published. It's about the release/tracklist of a TV soundtrack. It says it was rejected, because there aren't any reliable sources cited. However, I had included sources (they're in the references, as you can see), among them the official page by the Record Label that released the soundtrack. I really don't know what other sources I am supposed to cite for this to not be rejected. It's an article for a soundtrack that includes the tracklist, it's not an Academic article or something that needs to be double-checked five times for accuracy. I'd really like for this article to be published, because I want the discography overview on this other Wiki site to be complete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_in_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel#Buffyverse_discography

So please if there is anything that can be done to make this article be finally published, let me know.

DagonsSphere (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Discogs is user-generated, and bluntinstrument.org.uk is a self-published fan site. Neither one is a reliable source. The record label is a reliable source, but it is not an independent one. If the only reliable secondary source writing in-depth about the box set is the company that issued it, then the product is not notable (it doesn't warrant an article). In that case it should be de-linked from Music in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel per WP:REDLINKS.


 * When choosing a topic for a new article, it's a good idea to start by ensuring it is notable, that Wikipedia can use an article on that topic. It's easier to improve Wikipedia's 5.5 million existing articles. See Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

15:12:10, 30 June 2018 review of submission by 90.50.197.90
Hi Don't need assistance as such. Just to justify my article, refused on the lack of references I would just like try and justify myself. I much doubt that other references are available on this very uninteresting and limited topic. I was part of the editing team for the magazine Vishataroon, and responsable for editing help and distribution transport. My name would be in the magazine if anyone still has a copy. I have lost contact with then rest of the team since 1973.

90.50.197.90 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:33:57, 30 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Wolftrex458
Ok Im confused. I didn't use any webpages that was hers. I didn't use any social media. I even followed the lay out and guides of Tom Cruises page. Every link is independent. Every verification is independent. She has starred in films which I use the official page if not IMDB's link. She is a musician I linked proof of each CD. And she runs a charity which I linked news sources for verification. I am completely baffled. Someone tell me the exact reason why this page wasn't accepted. Wolftrex458 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Examine the first paragraph of the draft. English Sentences Should Not be Written with Every Important Word Capitalized. All of the occupations and job titles should be lowercase. There are six external links in the paragraph. They are not allowed in running text. If they can verify the text, format them as references instead, as explained in Help:Referencing for beginners.


 * An independent source is one not closely affiliated with Mack. An organization that she founded and is the president of is closely affiliated with her, so defendingtheendangered.com is not independent. Also, it fails to verify that she is the founder (and there must be a better source for her being president than a white caption on a mostly white background within a video). Verification is also a problem with fhffsd.org, which doesn't say anything about the 2015 nominees. If you meant that the information is somewhere on that website, then link to the exact web page where it appears. IMDb is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. It's doubtful that World Animal News is a reliable source (no reputation for accuracy and fact checking) and the piece appears to be a press release from Mack's organization, so not independent.


 * "Stunningly beautiful" and "tireless worker" are peacock language. Such puffery doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The paragraph ends with something that isn't a complete sentence.


 * The lead section fails to summarize the body of the article. It contains information that isn't in the body. See WP:LEAD for more information.


 * All of the above are problems, but the exact reason the draft was declined was that it fails to establish that Mack is notable. The first sentence or two should make it clear why she is notable and should be backed up in the body by independent, reliable, secondary sources. The lead fails to make any claim of notability. She heads a non-notable charity. She had a bit role in one episode of a TV series. She had a supporting role in a non-notable film, for which she failed to win an award at a non-notable festival. And she's in a non-notable band. All of which leaves the reader wondering, "So what"? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok so from your reply I am led to believe that Actors and Actresses who haven't got that major lead role yet are looked down upon by Wikipedia as a nothing? so the 20 or so roles she has had in movies don't count? So am I right in thinking this is just an elitist page? Now Wikipedia post pages about unproven theories. from you are saying you only support facts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang this is an unproven theory, it has no basis in facts. There is no scientific proof for this. There are 5millions pages on Wikipedia? I could guarantee I could go "so what" on half of them. your reply was rude, heartless, I asked for advice as to why, I didn't ask for a self centered cold hearted none human. If there was an option to report the reply I would make one. Wolftrex458 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - I think a comparison between Ms Mack and the Big Bang Theory slightly overplays the former's significance. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * - Hi, kindly calm down. Wikipedia has a WP:CIVIL policy. Comment on actions but not on name calling on editor especially u|Wolfrex458 volunteered their free time to evaluate your draft based on Wikipedia guidelines. I understand you are disappointed that you draft is not accepted at this stage but do understand that subjects would grant a page in Wikipedia if they are notable under Wikipedia guidelines. actor notability is established based on significant coverage from reliable source which are independent from the subject, such as source from major newspaper that "directly" talk about the subject and not merely passing mention.  There are a lot of pages which should not belong in Wikipedia - see Other stuff exists, and the Wikipedia volunteers have yet to come around to work on them. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)