Help desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 14[edit]

How do I approve and disprove articles?[edit]

How do I get permission to be allowed to approve and disprove articles? Namenamesjjenehjd (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namenamesjjenehjd: The *minimum* criteria can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Eagleash (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While you're waiting to meet those requirements, you can read up about notability, reliable sources, and how to cite references. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had left a welcome message with various links at their TP. Eagleash (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of an article that was previously deleted[edit]

Hi. How do I restore an article that was deleted in March of 2019 by a roving gang of illiterate British editors with zero background or educational exposure to the topic at hand. The topic at hand, was on the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund (also the name of the article) that had been orginally posted in 2009 or 2010, but 10 years later or so, was nominated for deletion by a complete ignoramus (a British low-level techie), and once moved to the article for deletion phase, was deleted against mine and another Wikipedia editor's wishes, by a group of solely British editors and administrators, who had never heard of US efforts to fund private enterprise in the post-Soviet satellite nations, during the 1990s. Unfortunately, for me, I was the only editor of this article which should never have been deleted to begin with and was a working article for nearly 10 years on Wikipedia. How do I restore this article to Wikipedia, since Central Asia and its issues, have recently emerged in the US press, and would have provided some background for these recent news events? Thank you. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stevenmitchell. If you are hoping to get an article restored, accusing editors who disageee with you of being a roving gang of illiterate British editors with zero background or educational exposure to the topic at hand is pretty much the opposite of a productive approach. It is metaphorically like taking a loaded Colt .45 revolver and firing three shots into your own ankle and foot. This is a collaborative project. Insulting your fellow editors simply does not work. Calling a fellow editor a complete ignoramus is an utterly unacceptable personal attack. If you do not cease that misconduct forever, you will be blocked from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see some advice on re-creating the article here:[1]. See also [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenmitchell See No Personal Attacks. Talk about content, not about other editors. An illiterate editor would clearly not be able to nominate an article for deletion, so your note is not logical. (Notice that I didn't say anything here about you. I made a comment about the content only.) And a "roving gang", really? How do you know their movements? You would do well to heed Cullen's advice. David10244 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund sheds some light on this.

What Cullen328 said, Stevenmitchell. But if you can lay off the indignation and name-calling, and can instead coolly, concisely and persuasively explain how the decision to delete was based on premises that are no longer valid, then the person to ask is BD2412, on User talk:BD2412. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts vs. Sandboxes / Moving pages[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about dealing with drafts, sandboxes and their respective namespaces, hopefully I'm in the right place to do so.

1.) Firstly, how do I determine when I should choose a sandbox over a draft while creating my test articles, and vice versa?

Since I joined this platform in the last summer, I've used AfC tools to create several drafts and submit them for review, as I was still learning how to structure full articles and meet notability criteria, rather than just editing or adding citations here and there. However, I think I've got a decent grasp of the fundamentals now, or at least the ones regarding specific topics: for now, I mainly cover association football articles. [Here are, respectively, one of my "passed experiments" and one of my "failed" ones, for context]. What's more, I've realized that I can create multiple subpages and sandboxes in order to make tests, as well.

So, should I use my own userspace pages more? Or could I still take advantage of AfC tools in particular cases, especially when the article is really close to meet WP:GNG? I'd really appreciate anyone who can clarify this aspect, as I should probably stop filling up what's already a pretty saturated draft backlog...

2.) Now, being an auto-confirmed user, I'm allowed to move pages and sandbox articles by myself. However, if one of my Drafts happens to meet GNG after a while, should I still let someone else review it, rather than performing the move by myself?

Also, can I directly turn sandbox pages into full articles, once they meet GNG? I still haven't had the opportunity to rename a page, so I'm still unfamiliar with it...

I hope I've expressed myself clearly enough.

Thanks to everyone who will take (and have) the time to reply!

Oltrepier (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My personal approach is to build articles up in userspace, then move directly to article space when I am happy that they're finished. I think that's always what I've done for every new article I've written. There's no policy requiring me to do that, but I find it most convenient. You don't need to go through AfC, but be aware that new pages in article space will still be reviewed by WP:NPP reviewers. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit That's right, I didn't even think about it!

And new pages that fail the review can still be kept as Drafts (or re-converted to sandboxes), proved that their quality and/or content is at least acceptable, right? Oltrepier (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Generally articles are moved back to draft/their creator's userspace if they turn out to be unsiutable for mainspace but they meet none of the speedy deletion criteria, however, since draftifying is not meant to be a backdoor deletion per WP:DRAFTIFY, theree is a chance they end up at AFD instead]]. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt Right. So, in short: you should publish a full article only when it's really time to publish it. : D

Thanks to both of you for your help! Oltrepier (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROFESSIONAL WRITERS[edit]

HI all, I am super confused. I spent weeks working on an article for a person who definitely deserves a wiki page. dozens of published books, articles, congress testimony, featured on documentaries on and on.. I followed the outline of other wiki articles and feel like it was very well backed up. But it was rejected. I find the feedback confusing. when I ask specific questions about how to fix it, I dont get an answer. so as I was googling around to try and understand what I am doing incorrectly...I saw that there are companies you can hire to write articles and submit them for you. I assume they know exactly what is needed but I thought this was unacceptable? I thought wiki could only be written by an individual who is not closely associated with the subject but not hired to do so. Can someone clarify for me? it might be worth hiring someone to help me understand how to write it so it won't get rejected. advice please>>> Childrenandart (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional companies that write articles on a subject aren't banned per se, but they do have lots of things that they have to do to be done correctly (such as denoting the payment and their WP:COI on the subject). However, there's no guarentee that these articles will be any better, or be any less deleted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Draft:Michael Christoper Fairbanks. Like many drafts that have been turned down, it reads far more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. The reason given was that it needs more cites to reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Childrenandart The draft appears to be Draft:Michael Fairbanks and currently, I'm afraid it is in a terrible state. Writing acceptable articles, particularly of living people, where Wikipedia has exacting standards summarized at WP:BLP is extremely difficult for new editors. For example, you have not followed the guidance at WP:SURNAME as you often refer to Fairbanks as "Mike", which is not appropriate. The draft strays into topics that have little to do with him: for example details about his family and their home. Why do we need to know The home contains 1828 murals on the first and second floor by itinerant artist, Rufus Porter.? My advice would be to cut 80% of the text, leaving only the parts that will convince reviewers that Fairbanks is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Back up all that you leave in with properly cited references to reliable sources and forget that anyone "definitely deserves" an article: it is our job as editors to demonstrate why this person is more noteworthy than the 7-billion-plus people on the planet who don't have one but may feel their life is equally "deserving". Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your connection to the subject of the article? I'm not trying to trick you into giving anything away here, it's just best that you are frank and honest about the situation so we can give you the best advice on doing things properly. It's difficult to believe that you have no particular connection to this person, but also that you are so keen that we host an article about them that you would be willing to pay a company to write one. What's the story? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Stavropoulos, artist[edit]

Hello, I would like to know how I can submit my father's information (Théo Stavropoulos, 1930-2007) for entry into Wikipedia. He was a fine artist of note. Thank you, Dominique (Stavropoulos) Williams Dgsinteriors (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgsinteriors Welcome to the Teahouse. I googled your father's name and all the main links are to his own website and social media, together with an obituary that has not been published on a reliable source like a mainstream newspaper. Thus it is unlikely that there is sufficient published information in depth about him to base a Wikipedia draft demonstrating he is notable in the sense used here. Nevertheless, if you wish to try to create a draft, please read the links I've provided plus WP:YFA and WP:BACKWARD and proceed via the WP:AFC process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Was this [3] the obit you were thinking of? Looks ok at a glance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång No, I saw this one which looks iffy. Yours is much better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull [4][5] I think we're in decent shape. I'll try to write this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found another couple of useful sources which I've added to @Dgsinteriors's Talk Page. She's very lucky to have piqued your interest! Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgsinteriors Not easily. You can't base such an article on your own knowledge. On WP, an article on Théo Stavropoulos should be a summary of published reliable sources (WP:RS), independent of him (and his family etc). Articles in journals and newspapers, books that write about him, etc. What are the 3-5 best such sources you can think of that write about him in some detail? Without such sources, a WP article will not be kept. Also, take a look at WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If WP accepts such an article, it will not be under your control. If there are media reports that he was involved in the theft of America (perhaps not a very likely example), it will be mentioned in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting articles I created[edit]

Hi, I created a select number of articles on concert tours a few years ago. I made them when I was younger and looking back at them now, I don't think all of them should stay on Wikipedia due to their brevity, sourcing, and lack of importance. However, since I created those articles, I don't know if it would be an issue if I was the one to redirect them back to the band's WP page. Additionally, a few of these articles feature images I uploaded, and they may end up being orphaned and subsequently deleted. Any thoughts? Thank you. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrisnait, it would not be an issue to blank and redirect those articles. If another editor disagrees, they can just revert you. Yes, any fair use images would likely be deleted, though it's likely that re-uploading them should the article be restored would be easy to do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]