Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 21

= June 21 =

05:49:10, 18 June 2021 review of submission by sunnnytyagii
Sunny Tyagi (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have submitted the page for review and I received a notification stating that the page has been created from the advertisement point of view. I have not submitted the content on the basis of self-promotion as well as to advertise a person. Instead, I have added the sources in which the person has contributed without self-promoting himself. Now, the concern is, whether the whole page is corrupted with the self-promotion issues or is it more like a sources problem? If the issues is with self-advertising, then let me know what type of page is acceptable and same goes for references issues.
 * A Wikipedia article must do more than merely tell about person and what they have done- that is considered promotional. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Significant coverage goes beyond merely telling what the person has done, and goes into why it is significant.  Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

08:44:50, 21 June 2021 review of submission by IAmSeamonkey2
The person who rejected this article claims that the source I used to make it does not mention the topic. This is false. I double checked and it is definitely mentioned on the site. multiple other articles on virus taxonomy reference this exact site. As such, I believe that this rejection is unjustified and should be remedied. IAmSeamonkey2 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true, multiple sources are needed to sustain a draft, not just one. Most reviewers look for a minimum of three. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I double checked again and the source indeed does NOT mention the topic, sources need to be in-depth with significant coverage to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hate having to disagree with you there, that particular genus is actually mentioned. Its path is Duplodnaviria (Realm) -> Heunggongvirae (Kingdom) -> Peploviricota (Phylum) ->Herviviricetes (class) -> Herpesvirales (Order) -> Herpesviridae (Family) -> Betaherpesvirinae (Subfamily) -> Quwivirus. But without doubt, thats not significant coverage. (Note: Most browser's search functions don't find hidden elements, particularely if they are loaded via JS.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * More than happy to be proved wrong! If significant coverage can be found, I'm also happy to accept the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

10:50:30, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Njinfo10109
Mahnaz Malik has been published in legal 500, the guarding and numerous pakistani based news site.

She has published books, That's I cited of where and you can simple Google them.

This is notable person. A published author, a speaker seen on numerous videos and a award winning lawyer as cited.

Njinfo10109 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

11:39:33, 21 June 2021 review of draft by BettinaGsott
Dear Helpdesk! I'm struggling to get my article about an art project approved. I has been rewritten in accordance to the reviewers feedback (and teahouse feedback), but there seems to be a question with the references versus external links. May I ask for guidance on this topic? Since it is an art project the references are mainly news paper articles. Also, could you offer any suggestion as to how to avoid having to wait another couple of months for the Article for Creation process? Thank you so muchBettinaGsott (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

BettinaGsott (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are struggling because basically it's just advertising the project, for example the 'Promotional tie-ins" section should be removed entirely. Theroadislong (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

14:27:37, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Syrus33
I have all the references in here now, please advise Syrus33 (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

14:38:13, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Wildkids11
I don't understand why this isn't notable enough like I have literally wrote a lot about this person added in relevant links and also took out the Instagram and YouTube links. What more do you want me to do? You have told me stop editing so now I can't request again even though i have wrote a lot as i have said and added in links which i was told to out in ages ago and you have still declined it. Your also saying it's not notable, she is a member of the National Youth Board for the united Kingdom, which may i add represents our entire country in the UK, and known for radio presenting as stated. I spent hours making this article and your just going to stop it from being published because it's not notable enough. I read your notability article and said it needs to be in depth so I looked up the most in depth stuff i could find about Lydia and added them in to make it the most in depth thing so it would be accepted by wikipedia. She's on IMDB the same thing mostly all your younger people on here are on and that contains supportive information to my work. I have done articles and everyone of mine gets put in the trash even if its someone more famous than another person. Please re read and i am sure if other people contributed as lots of people do, because that what wikipedia is for they would add more links and maybe edit bits in that i could scrape off. Thank you. Wildkids11 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not considered an acceptable source on Wikipedia as it is user editable. If you want to tell the world about this person, you should use an alternative forum where that is permitted. It is true that others could contribute to an article, but you have to get it started first. No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. You must show it with sources, and they just aren't there. Most "YouTubers" do not merit articles. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok that is understandable thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildkids11 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

15:21:59, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Shagufi nashra
Shagufi nashra (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

shagufi nashra was (redacted) and she was a student she was study in 10th class and her father name is mohammed haji and mother name is naser khatoon she have 1 sister and 1 brother brother name is mohammed hazeeb and sister name is shagufta nashia they religion is islam.shagufi nashra is a father helper and her assistent shagufi nashra father have 3 companys and shagufi nashra father is a business manShagufi nashra (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

16:22:18, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Njinfo10109
Njinfo10109 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Aswell, I've decided to do a new page through seeing her sister's Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_A.R.#/editor/1

Her sister has written only one book and has a Wikipedia.

Mahnaz malik has written more than 2 books and has international articles written online. This doesn't make sense at all.
 * Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, not individual pages, which are called articles. People do not "have a Wikipedia", they have a Wikipedia article.  The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.  You have not established that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author.
 * Please see other stuff exists. That other similar articles might exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each article is judged on its own merits.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and since there are millions of articles but few volunteers to curate them, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us.  We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help us identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

16:35:09, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Duchi jewelry
Duchi jewelry (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above user has been blocked for obvious reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 17:35:25, 21 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by GunterGruen
Hi! I'd like some advice on a draft article I created. I've made a lot of edits to Wikipedia in the past, but this is my first time creating an article. I'm Canadian, and am researching university departments that cover environmental studies, as I'm interested in enrolling in one. I noticed that the University of Toronto's School of the Environment doesn't have a wikipedia page, so I created one, modelled off other similar pages I've seen for schools at other Universities. My first attempt was a little thin on citations, and was initially rejected by user Robertsky. So I expanded the article, and added links to secondary sources, as per the guide. However, it has been rejected again by user Hatchens, who says they agree with Robertsky, and seems to have ignored the edits I've made since my first submission.

My issue is that Wikipedia already has entries for many similar schools, many of which don't have any reliable secondary sources at all:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_School_of_the_Environment - all references are internal to Duke University
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milano_School_of_Policy,_Management,_and_Environment - only three references, all to the New School itself
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_School_of_Enterprise_and_the_Environment - one paragraph of text, and only two references, both to the School itself.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Sutherland_School_of_Architecture_and_Built_Environment - again, only references to the School itself
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Environment_Institute - a little better, but still mostly primary references
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMaster_Institute_of_Environment_and_Health - this one's barely even a stub, with no references at all.

If you compare the page I created with any of these, I believe it does a better job on the criteria these reviewers are asking for. And while I've only researched university departments that cover the environment, the issue seems to be far more widespread - I found lots of wikipedia pages for university departments at many prominent universities that would also clearly fail these criteria. These pages are extremely useful to me, as they give me an easy way of finding reliable (non-promotional) information about these Schools, all in one place. I believe they all should have wikipedia entries.

So could we have a more systematic approach? It's rather disheartening for me as a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia to have my work summarily dismissed like this. Many thanks for your time!

GunterGruen (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * PS I just read the article other stuff exists. I hope I'm making a valid comparison in order to judge what makes sense as reliable secondary sources! GunterGruen (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)