Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 8

= January 8 =

07:38:06, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Schumilegend33
Also, if you check here you'll see this wiki mentions IoTeX, so it would be better if we could link it to a live page instead of a dead link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt

Schumilegend33 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? If you are associated with IoTeX, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

08:07:15, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Youtube ki duniya
Youtube ki duniya (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It does little more than tell of the existence of the topic.  A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to state about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

08:16:45, 8 January 2022 review of submission by VKG1985
Hi, I would like to take advice on this article that where things are incorrect as I am not able to get a clear picture. Please help! VKG1985 (Talk &#124; E-Mail &#124; Contrib) 08:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- not based on any materials put out by the subject or basic information- to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because the person you wrote about does not meet that definition. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks 331dot, got something in details. I will read for reliable & independent sources further. Meanwhile, asking for page deletion. -- VKG1985 (Talk &#124; E-Mail &#124; Contrib) 12:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

10:54:59, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview
Dear editors, thank you all for extensive controls, I think I underestimated the importance of copyright for images; in the current draft I am using only those already within Wikimedia Commons, although when time allows planning to include more, especially from the NASA/ESA collections, where dissemination is normally not controversial. Therefore I think the text is now ready to submit/publing on Wikipedia. Hopefylly the text will be improved by other readers/editors. Final comments: There are many subjects/articles referenced that are already on WP, but I hope automated programs will mark up these search words in text (otherwise I or other readers will do that in the near future). Similarly, the Reference list duplicates references already used previously in the article text; hope this is automatically fixed in the process (I cannot cope with this). Regarding the last picture (WikiCommons) showing a trainee performin elbow extensions using the Exxentric KPulley2; this company is one of the more inventive and active in the group of current manufacturers, and I have NO commercial or other contacts with them. I just find it a good way of illustrating the Flywheel exercise technique. Best regards / Flyview; awaiting your response and advice how to proceed; are there steps for me to take? See further responses above; especially Flyview/Slywriter Jan 7 01:37:16.

Flyview (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , comments were made above. Please reply in that section so everything is in one place.Slywriter (talk)

11:47:03, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Iam momolee
Iam momolee (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

13:30:55, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Cblambert
Draft Louis Riel (historiagraphy) article is intended as child article to Louiss Riel per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_Riel#Stanley's_4_critical_perspectives_of_Riel_as_cited_in_Betts"The 'or not' does not support ballooning the section in this article; as I indicated above, it would support creation of a more detailed child article. Cblambert (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) J"

Louis Riel has been an FA since 2007 and reached a mb size of over 100 mb about a year ago, which include an expanded Historiography section. Louis Riel has been pruned heavily including in terms of down-sizing Historiography section as you now see. Separate child article would help complement summary Louis Riel article because of controversial nature of the issues. Cblambert (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The current article draft is a summary of historiography issues to be developed later, which shows extensive source items in Bibliography section. Cblambert (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

13:44:11, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Boringmikesmith
Hello - changes re notability have been made - please review

Boringmikesmith (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No...Still a non notable registered charity, still blatant advertising, still rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

13:58:44, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Cblambert
This is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Louis_Riel_(historiography.

Draft Louis Riel (historiagraphy) article is intended as child article to Louiss Riel per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_Riel#Stanley's_4_critical_perspectives_of_Riel_as_cited_in_Betts

The "or not" does not support ballooning the section in this article; as I indicated above, it would support creation of a more detailed child article. Cblambert (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Jb

Louis Riel has been an FA since 2007 and reached a mb size of over 100 mb about a year ago, which include an expanded Historiography section. Louis Riel has been pruned heavily including in terms of down-sizing Historiography section as you now see. Separate child article would help complement summary Louis Riel article because of controversial nature of the issues.

Status of draft is rejected and stopped per "Submission rejected on 8 January 2022 by David.moreno72. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Questions: Why is draft submission contrary to purpose of Wikipedia? Can stopped draft be re-submitted?Cblambert (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Cblambert (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , see WP:PROPERSPLIT. You should not be creating an entirely new article to highlight different information than what already exists.Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a circular argument, which is at odds with current WP:SUMMARY approach for Louis Riel. According to senior editors of the Louis Riel FA article 'does not support ballooning the section'. Help! Cblambert (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum for any discussion beyond article creation. Gain consensus at parent article or start an RfC on whatever content issues you have. This board is limited to article creation and Splitting an article has a clear procedure to follow.Slywriter (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if there is Draft:Louis Riel (historiography) article, than there cannot be Louis Riel section? It' either or or, not both? Cblambert (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cblambert if that were what they were saying they would have said it. They said Wrong forum for any discussion beyond article creation. Gain consensus at parent article or start an RfC on whatever content issues you have. This board is limited to article creation and Splitting an article has a clear procedure to follow. which is sound advice and you should follow it Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me]] 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt about soundness of advice but I am fearful about that big Stop icon about status of Draft:Louis Riel (historiography) wondering if the Draft can ever be turned into article. Cblambert (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would advise against it. The draft as it stands consists almost entirely of quotations, such long quotations belong neither in the main article nor in a split.  DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) �

15:30:43, 8 January 2022 review of submission by 103.72.177.195
103.72.177.195 (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers for future reference. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

19:12:34, 8 January 2022 review of draft by 173.56.35.235
Hello There,

I tried to address the issue of not having enough press articles and was successful at tracking down a few. It's challenging because the articles are quite old. Are the new citations enough or do I need to find more?

- Floyd Rumohr

173.56.35.235 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think there are enough, but you might want to remove some of the detail, avoid adjects implying quality or excellence, and use shorter daptions for the illustrations.  DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

20:29:30, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Tajamul Bashir Bhat
Tajamul Bashir Bhat (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "says he was a caliph"? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

22:13:38, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Mdinger.bugzilla
I submitted the following draft which is based on the japanese wikipedia page I list below and was instantly denied. The japanese page already exists and there should be a companion english page to accompany it but none exists. I actually don't care if the page is almost entirely blank but needs filling out later because that at least lets an english user know a japanese award like this exists and they can check the japanese page for more details.

The japanese page doesn't have any references either so I can't really just copy them and my japanese is mediocre so I'm trying to be pretty brief anyway. It doesn't seem to me this should have been denied for the reason given but I don't know what to do regarding it.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%A6%E9%A4%A8%E5%85%90%E7%AB%A5%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E8%B3%9E

Mdinger.bugzilla (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Odds are the ja.wp page is poor by the policies and standards of ja.wp. The English-language Wikipedia's policies apply only to the English-language Wikipedia, and all pages - even those translated from other language editions of Wikipedia - must adhere to them. (This is a constant issue when it comes to translation, as the English-language Wikipedia both has stricter policies and more robust policing than most other editions.) —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 16:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)