Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 25

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< July 24 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 26 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation 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.


July 25

edit

03:19:02, 25 July 2019 review of submission by YaJean

edit

I've added 3 more reliable resources to enhance the notability.

YaJean (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YaJean None of the three sources you added does the slightest thing to demonstrate notability. The reason for the STOP sign on the draft is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:27, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Gabom Sunny Han

edit


Hello, I think enough reliable sources (weblinks and scientific articles) are included in the contents. And also, the reviewer said the entire sections are unverified? What does this mean and what do I need to do to solve this issue? Am I obligated to change the lists into prose? because I think the lists are easier to comprehend.

Gabom Sunny Han (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2019 (KST)

@Gabom Sunny Han:
  • The draft cites no independent sources. It is essential that sources be reliable, but that is not sufficient.
  • No sources are cited within sections "EzBioCloud database" and "Naming convention", and in several subsections of "Analytics methods", so it is unclear where that information came from.
  • Lists are not forbidden, but are often regarded as a sign of an underdeveloped page. If the information is easiest to understand in a list, one should consider carefully whether it's the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. In any case, the presence of lists should have no effect on whether the draft is accepted or not.
--Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:31, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Rubim Rebisha

edit


Rubim Rebisha (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not notable and the draft is a copyright infringement, I have tagged it for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:05, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Happinesskey

edit


I believe Jeff Rosenthal is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I'd like some help in formatting this page to fit better with Wikipedia's ruleset while still creating a page for a notable person. Happinesskey (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happinesskey. Examining a random sample of the draft's sources:
  • Beyond Conflict is a capsule bio supplied by Rosenthal, it is not independent
  • 9 Innovators to Watch is an blog from an organization partnering with Rosenthal's Summit, so not arms length.
  • Chartable is a download site for a podcast hosted by Rosenthal, it does nothing to demonstrate notability.
  • GroupY is a capsule bio accompanying a primary source interview with Rosenthal. The language ("generational thought leader, connector, and instigator", "flagship global events gatherings that unite the leaders of today and tomorrow through environments and events designed to catalyze positive personal and collective growth", "drive positive disruptive innovation") suggests it was supplied by Rosenthal.
  • Wallpaper doesn't mention Rosenthal.
The combination of craptastic sources like these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenthal (businessman) (2nd nomination), and a history of editors trying to use Wikipedia to promote Rosenthal, mean that you're unlikely to find volunteers to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:17, 25 July 2019 review of draft by BelisariusCawl

edit


Hello,

I received notification this morning that my draft article "Panoply (Data warehouse)" was declined, but the editor's talk page noted that editor has retired. I'm trying to figure out how to improve the article--reviewer notes that "press releases and funding announcements are not independent coverage", but only one press release was included as a source. Other sources are third party, independent coverage of the subject--if I remove the press release as a source, will the article be sufficiently improved for publication?

Thanks!

BelisariusCawl

BelisariusCawl (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BelisariusCawl. The two TechCrunch pieces are "funding announcements", so the absolute minimum to address the reviewer's comment would be to remove prnewswire and TechCrunch. Globes is usually a good source, but this piece is just another regurgitation of a press release announcing a round of capital raising. Remove it, and the draft would be left with sources which, with the possible exception of SiliconANGLE, have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking: The New Stack, DATAVERSITY, and G2 Crowd.
The fundamental problem, explained in the big pink box on the draft, above the reviewer's comment, is that the cited sources don't show that the startup is notable. Because of the nature of the company, it's unlikely that any sources exist that could demonstrate that it is notable. If that's the case, no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. Throw it away and return to the topic in a few years, by which time more may have been written about the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:26, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Justice? Aye right!

edit


Justice? Aye right! (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Would you tell me why you cannot publish this? I was hoping to add information too.[reply]

Hi Justice? Aye right!. Volunteers at this help desk generally can't see what was deleted, so are not in a position to answer your question. You may find Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? and/or Help:My article got nominated for deletion! helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:51, 25 July 2019 review of draft by LowlanderToo

edit


Prompted by comments from DGG I have made further changes to the proposed Buckland WP page. I could not find a relevant link for Chartered Statistician so deleted that item. I found a link for the PhD thesis so added that. My question is whether I need to provide a link showing that Buckland was born in Dorset: short of finding a link to his birth certificate or some published biography I am not sure how to provide such a link. Similarly for the universities he attended as an undergrad. Should I just delete reference to those two Universities? Then to be consistent delete the link to the secondary school? Aren't these items interesting even if missing links? It seems to me that Buckland does merit a WP page, given his latest prestigious award but the incremental nature of the advice I have been given carries some frustrations. Would I be better off deleting almost everything and just presenting name and awards? That begins to sound boring. Thanks for advice. LowlanderToo (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have published sources for things like his schools, by definition we don't make any assertions. If there is no published biographical material, then the case for his notability is pretty darned weak. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_July_25&oldid=984981103"