Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 17 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 19 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 18

edit

05:11:28, 18 January 2021 review of draft by Btspurplegalaxy

edit


Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I'm requesting help because I need for someone to double-check my sources.[reply]

06:56:54, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Aslı Kırar

edit

Need help me Aslı Kırar (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:33, 18 January 2021 review of draft by Sinfonicron

edit


I am requesting help on behalf of Sinfonicron, a student-run light opera company at William & Mary. Due to the company's rich history and importance to the W&M community (which has been well documented by the W&M student publication Flat Hat, which is unaffiliated with Sinfonicron), we believe creating a wikipedia page is appropriate, but we have been told the article lacks references independent of the subject. The article has since been updated with more references from Flat Hat, but I am wondering if this is sufficient. I want to be careful, especially because the system mentioned a possible deletion if we did not fix the problem from before. Would it be worthwhile to include reviews from other organizations (outside of william and mary) as well? I just want to make sure I am properly addressing the issue presented.

Sinfonicron (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sinfonicron. Student publications commonly are given little or no weight in evaluating notability. In part this is because the writers are, by definition, still learning their trade. Also, they have a niche audience and small, local circulation. Their college's sports and other activities will be covered in their pages whether or not the wider world would consider them worthy of note. Any Wikipedia article would need to be based mainly on sources outside the college.
Searches of Google News and Google Books turned up nothing of substance in such sources. Past efforts to create an article on the topic have ended badly, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfonicron and Draft:Sinfonicron Light Opera Company. It would be better to improve College of William & Mary by expanding the sentence about the company into a paragraph. I've left more information on your talk page about how to manage a conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:38:09, 18 January 2021 review of submission by 2402:1980:828A:2EC6:C84C:71DF:A794:C1B4

edit


PLEASE PUBLISH THIS TO PUBLIC I WANT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THIS PERSON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:1980:828A:2EC6:C84C:71DF:A794:C1B4 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:48:01, 18 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by NmuoMmiri

edit


I would like to know why this submission is not considered significant when it is discussed in Wikipedia articles. The academic organization, Black in AI, is founded by leading researchers in the field of artificial intelligence. As a computer science researcher, the current Wikipedia article on Artificial Intelligence, does not reflect many of the current topics in artificial intelligence such as ethical artificial intelligence, ethical machine learning, and diversity in artificial intelligence. In my opinion, the current article on artificial intelligence is quite antiquated. I would like assistance in learning how to edit and propose articles in Wikipedia so they can reflect some of the more recent trends in computer science and artificial intelligence research. Thank you for your assistance.

softwaretestwriter (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NmuoMmiri. The draft is unacceptable because it fails to demonstrate that the organization is notable. It fails to do so because of the sources it cites. The first is a primary source interview with one of the founders of the organization, with no arms length analysis by the interviewer. It is not independent. The second is authored by a student organizer of one of the organization's workshops, and published on Medium, a self-published blog host. It is neither independent nor reliable. The third is a workshop announcement written by the organization. It is neither independent, nor significant coverage. The fourth is a blog post (don't confuse Forbes magazine with forbes.com/sites pieces written by contributors instead of staff). The author co-wrote one book with AI in the title, but it wasn't published by an academic or mainstream press. It is effectively self-published, by an obscure publisher of which she is the editor-in-chief, so it isn't convincing evidence of subject matter expertise. Her blog post is not reliable. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites none.
Whether or not a topic is mentioned in Wikipedia articles is not a measure of notability. Neither is who founded an organization. That doesn't mean the organization is not notable, only that the draft fails to demonstrate any shred of notability. Creating new articles is overrated, and a terrible way for new editors to learn about contributing to Wikipedia. I, for example, edited the encyclopedia for eight years before creating an article. You don't have to wait that long, but it is much more effective to spend considerable time improving existing articles before trying to create new ones.
Existing articles are outside the scope of Articles for creation and this help desk. If one or more recent textbooks contain a chapter on ethical artificial intelligence, etc., feel free to be bold and add a section to Artificial intelligence summarizing the significant viewpoints on the topic. If you want assistance with that, start a discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence, one of the WikiProjects listed there, at the general purpose Help Desk, or the Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Worldbruce Thank you for your response, it was very helpful. I understand your hesitancy when approving this entry as I also was somewhat skeptical until I conducted more research on the organization. It is quite a large organization and I am confident that it will eventually appear in Wikipedia whether I enter it or not. I will take your advice and begin to edit existing pages rather than entering new pages. However, I see quite a few topics from computer science that are missing entirely. I assume that my entries will be reverted often but I will attempt it anyway. Thank you so much for your guidance. I will visit the talk page at Artificial Intelligence and review the other sources you provided. Thank you for your conscientious criticism.

NmuoMmiri (talk)

14:48:10, 18 January 2021 review of submission by AryanKhanna475

edit


Hi! What can we do to publish this article on wikipedia. It would be great if you can give us some advice on what needs to be changed. All the references have already been attached to the article. It is one of the biggest debating societies in Asia and conducts various events for discussions on crucial issues. Its an engaging article for many people within the country and interested in debating

AryanKhanna475 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AryanKhanna475, please don't use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes. Wikipedia is neither a social network, nor a webhost, nor a platform for promotion. Also, it appears that you have a conflict of interest with the society. Please go through the conflict of interest policy. JavaHurricane 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:35, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Mjkboston

edit


Hi, I am confused. Intellectual property, patents and trademarks are not a niche topic. I added a very recent and major reference from the WSJ that talk directly about this and a number of publications published by the Board Members of CIPU are also well published.

Do you want me to write more about intellectual property? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property


Mjkboston (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:25, 18 January 2021 review of draft by Giuseppe Ardolino

edit


Hi, I received the review result of my draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sadas). It has been declined due to not neutral point of view and some references to modify. I asked for more details to improve my page and I am waiting for an answer from those who declined my draft's submission. It's possible to receive other details (on which sections and references to change) in order to move on to edit and publish? (I modified more times my page thanks to a lot of contributors, but I don't understand why it's not still ready to be published). For any kind of information, I am totally available. Really thanks so much for your availability Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:27, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Srimant ROSHAN

edit

I am requesting for this article to be published, because when I was read the Wikipedia article on Shahu I. In that subsection of family ther is a mention of two son of Chhtrapati Shahu I from his two wife. But when I searched about that two son ,I get some websites who says about two sons but no name of that sons and finely in a article of royal ark describing about genealogy of Chhtrapati Shahu I a name of a son of Chhtrapati Shahu I and his wife Sagunabai was described but another 1 was unknown. And I have find a family tree of Shahu I in that also the same name of son and same name of wife was shown with same lifespan of that son as that shown in a royal ark article .So, that I requesting Wikipedia to publish this article.

Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He died in 1730 at the age of 2-3 years, what could he have possibly done to become notable? Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there any content in the draft that could be merged elsewhere, since neither Royal Ark nor The History Files is a reliable source. "Fact, legend and imaginative reconstructions are hopelessly intermixed", in the words of one Wikipedian. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:50, 18 January 2021 review of submission by ThatOddEditor

edit

Hi there, thank you for the quick review, previously there were insufficient references and information to the career of Ben Hum and I have further added on and included more about him. There are some sources which we are currently unable to quote due to his existing contract with his well-known management company 2mm Entertainment (can be searched wiki as well). Hopefully you could help to approve and we would be adding on his career details moving forward on a regular basis. Really appreciate your help! Thank you! ThatOddEditor (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:31, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

edit

Hello, I updated the JumpCloud draft with more information discussing company product and funding history, alongside inserting independent sources to support this information. I am wondering if the recent edits will allow for the draft to be accepted and published? Thank you. Barouy13 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 22:56:38, 18 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by RavensEyeArt

edit


In reference to draft: Jamey Stillings 1. I do not understand specifically where additional citations are needed or which citations need further information, sincere effort was made to read and follow wikipedia guidelines but as a newbie I appreciate I may not fully understand and so would appreciate further input. 2. It was requested to "cut down the bibliography to only a few of the most notable works", is that refering specifically the "SELECTED EDITORIAL PUBLICATIONS" section or elsewhere? Are there current inclusions that are suggested for removal? I will be most grateful for any RavensEyeArt (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)assistance and hope to continue to edit the article for further review. RavensEyeArt (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_January_18&oldid=1002348335"