Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 27

= January 27 =

02:07, 27 January 2024 review of submission by SonicTH1991
I need someone else to improve this article for me, what I’ve done is just a template for them to start off from but they must use this template and modify it to fit your guidelines. SonicTH1991 (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, SonicTH1991, it doesn't work like that. Leaving a stub around hoping that somebody will pick it up and make it into an acceptable article is like piling up some wood and hoping that somebody will build a house out of it. Why should anybody? If you want there to be an article on a subject, you do the leg-work, starting with finding the sources that justify having an article on the subject at all.
 * Wikipedia did use to work like that, long ago. The result is that we have thousands and thousands of more-or-less useless articles that nobody much wants to put the time in to improve or delete. We don't want more of those, thanks. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

05:49, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Mechachleopteryx
I would like other editors to read the article and improve it. I am not an expert on the topic so it would be better to be in the main namespace possibly with a tag that says stub. A page might sit for years before someone finds it who happens to be an expert or who has free time to do research. Mechachleopteryx (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to SonicTH1991 just above.
 * You don't need to be an expert on a subject to write an article on it: you just need to be able to find (and understand) the required independent, reliable, in-depth sources on the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

12:42, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Pastafan123
Can you tell me if dead links are acceptable (websites which are no longer retrievable)?

Also can I use petitions submitted to the UN by someone independent of the subject of the article? If so, would i use the journal template for citation? Pastafan123 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are reliably published and in principle obtainable (even if you would have to go to a particular library to consult them).
 * Again, with the petition: is it published? Who by? If by a reliable publisher, then probably yes; if by its originator, probably yes but as a self-published source, which can only be used in limited ways. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

12:52, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi
Sorry to insist, I still do not undersatd what is wrong with the text. Pls help me to understand. Thank you for an answer. Jpgroppi (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Most of the text is unreferenced. Plastering half a dozen citations on one sentence at the end achieves nothing. For every single assertion in an article you should have a source that tells a reader where they can verify the assertion. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most are referenced by newspaper articles. All that are referenced are controllable by these newspapers. I have a copy of all. But how to show it in Wikipedia? Unfortunatly Jean-Pierre lived in a time where internet was not present or just present. Jpgroppi (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

16:09, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Hyder1977
why my page was reject, please help me to activate Hyder Ali (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hyder1977 The messages left on the draft are pretty clear. The draft cites no independent reliable sources, and it is written in an overtly promotional tone. Based on your username, it appears to be an autobiography, and writing about yourself on Wikipedia is generally not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

16:34, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Uphila
What determines if a person is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Uphila (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Uphila see WP:NBIO. None of the sources you tried to cite are reliable because they are user-generated| or otherwise have no evidence other editorial oversight, history of fact checking, etc.  Not to mention it fails WP:NOTPROMO. The draft is rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

18:45, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Juanese1990
Goal Juanese1990 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Juanese1990 you do not ask at question but after several submissions with guidance on what is needed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and no relevant improvement, the draft is now rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

19:26, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Nickchoksi
Hello Double Grazing, please guide me what went wrong in this content, cause this Jewelry Manufacturing Information is genuinely missing in Wikipedia, and this is a Huge Industry ... Nickchoksi (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nickchoksi I'm not DoubleGrazing but the draft has no sources, is written like an essay so violates Wikipedia's WP:neutral point of view and original research policies, and much of it is already covered in Jewellery and other supporting articles. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

19:54, 27 January 2024 review of submission by TraceySear840
I feel the second draft reviewerwas really incompletein their analysis.

Based on the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and considering the case for the notability of Portal Fernández Concha, the argument for its notability can be framed as follows:

Significant Coverage: Portal Fernández Concha has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This coverage is not trivial and addresses the subject directly and in detail, fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage under the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV). Sources include historical archives, academic studies on Chilean architecture, and reputable news outlets reporting on the Portal's cultural and societal impacts.

Reliable Sources: The information about Portal Fernández Concha comes from reliable sources with editorial integrity, allowing for verifiable evaluation of notability per the reliable source guideline. These include peer-reviewed journals on architecture and history, books published on the cultural heritage of Santiago, and articles from established news organizations.

Independent Coverage: Coverage of Portal Fernández Concha comes from sources independent of the subject, ensuring objectivity and compliance with Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent of the topic (WP:INDY). This independence assures that the coverage is not influenced by self-promotion or conflict of interest.

Notability is Not Temporary: The Portal's historical significance and its role in Santiago's urban fabric are enduring, meeting the criterion that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). Its historical, architectural, and cultural relevance has been sustained over a significant period, establishing its lasting notability.

Presumption of Notability: Given the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, Portal Fernández Concha is presumed to merit its own article (WP:PRESUMED). This presumption is based on the depth of coverage and the quality of sources, even if some aspects of the Portal might require further sourcing or expansion.

Subject-Specific Guidelines: While general notability guidelines are paramount, subject-specific guidelines for buildings and structures also support the notability of Portal Fernández Concha. These guidelines consider the architectural significance, historical value, and cultural impact of structures, all of which are well-documented for the Portal.

Notability Requires Verifiable Evidence: The evidence of notability for Portal Fernández Concha is verifiable and documented in accessible sources (WP:NRV). This verifiability is critical in establishing the Portal's eligibility for a Wikipedia article. TraceySear840 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As this is now being debated at ANI (as well as the reviewer's UTP), I guess no response is required from AFCHD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

20:31, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Ілля Криворучко
Permanent decline of my submissions at Articles for creation. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ілля Криворучко: no, not 'permanent', only until you demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Adding more sources that fail to do that is not helpful, and will inevitably result in further declines.
 * That said, the draft is awaiting a new review, and you aren't actually asking a question... do you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've read a Wikipedia article about the notability of sportsmen (Notability (sports)), but there is no information about swimmers. What sources can be considered as notable for swimmers? Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ілля Криворучко: as I already mentioned in one of my reviews, there is no special notability guideline for swimmers, therefore the general WP:GNG guideline applies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help!! Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)