Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 9

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 8 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 10 >
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.


August 9

edit

02:32, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Mr.S Biswas

edit

What's problem 

Mr.S Biswas (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.S Biswas: the problem is that you shouldn't be writing about yourself, this is not LinkedIn or some other social media platform where you tell the world about your exploits. There is also nothing to suggest that you are notable as defined in the Wikipedia context. This draft has consequently been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Gerrybo80

edit

Last week, I received notice that you had rejected the Bitzino draft on Wikipedia because the reviewer thought I was being compensated for drafting the article. As their your instructions, I responded to assure the reviewer that I was not being compensated or affiliated with the company or topic in any way (in fact the company is no longer in business).

Today, I noticed that the reviewer changed the reason for rejection to state that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article meets both the General Notability Guideline and the Subject-specific Notability Guideline for organizations and companies. So I do not understand the reason for rejection or how to fix the problem. The article is well sourced with more than 26 sources including several news accounts, and professional and academic journals.

Could you please let me know what specifically I should adjust to make the article acceptable for inclusion? Additionally, could you inform me of the specific reasons for this rejection? I currently have three articles in the draft phase for publication on applied cryptography topics and have been active in editing several other pages. Understanding the exact requirements would help me avoid similar issues in the future.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Gerrybo80 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrybo80: that's not quite what happened. This draft was declined a couple of months ago, you resubmitted it, and last week it was rejected as non-notable. As a separate activity, the rejecting reviewer also posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, which I can see you responded to the following day. This query is not the reason for the rejection.
Rejected drafts cannot normally be resubmitted; that is the definition of rejection. If new evidence of notability is available which wasn't earlier considered, you may approach the rejecting reviewer directly to appeal the rejection. However, I note that no such evidence has been added to the draft, or referred to here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your clear and kind explanation. As someone who's new to Wikipedia and a bit older, I find some aspects of this process quite confusing.
I took the time to review the notability policy for companies, and I believe the Bitzino draft meets the criteria with its 26 sources, which include several news articles, as well as professional and academic journals like Ars Technica, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and the Vanderbilt Journal of Law.
However, the reviewer's response to my request for clarification was quite disheartening. They dismissed my efforts as a "waste of time" and assumed that I was paid to draft an article about a now-defunct company, and that I didn't collect sources before writing. Both of these assumptions are completely incorrect. I simply wanted to write articles about applied cryptography. Given the reviewer's stance, do you think it’s best to abandon this work?
Additionally, based on your experience, is the tone and style of discourse I encountered with CFA common on Wikipedia? I've truly enjoyed participating on the platform and have found everyone else to be kind and helpful, which is why this experience with CFA was so surprising to me.
____________
Rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bitzino
[edit source]
Hi CFA, Thank you for reviewing my article.
Last week, I received notice that you had rejected the Bitzino draft on Wikipedia because it appeared I was being compensated for drafting the article. As per your instructions, I responded to assure you that I was not being compensated or affiliated with the company or topic in any way.
Today, I noticed that the reason for rejection has been updated to state that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article meets both the General Notability Guideline and the Subject-specific Notability Guideline for organizations and companies.
Could you please let me know what specifically I should adjust to make the article acceptable for inclusion? Additionally, could you inform me of the specific reasons for this rejection? I currently have three articles in the draft phase for publication on applied cryptography topics and have been active in editing several other pages. Understanding the exact requirements would help me avoid similar issues in the future. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Thanks Gerrybo80 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerrybo80: Hi, I rejected your draft because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. The rejection reason has never changed. I rejected it instead of declining it because I did the research myself and found absolutely zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No amount of editing or adjustments to the article can change that. If I allowed you to resubmit it, it would be wasting both your time and future reviewers' time. Next time, to make sure you aren't wasting time, you should try writing an article forwards (i.e. finding sourcing before starting the article). Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 14:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Gerrybo80 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:04, 9 August 2024 review of submission by MRBELALIA

edit

Hello, I am the manager of Amoune Talens. I want to create a page for him. Please help me create it. Thank you. MRBELALIA (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MRBELALIA: Draft:Amoune Talens has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. Please do not resubmit rejected drafts.
You must disclose your conflict of interest immediately before any further editing. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 9 August 2024 review of submission by 2806:250:14C:B596:392D:19C6:9F3C:B95C

edit

Sli45 is a German-British animated web series 2806:250:14C:B596:392D:19C6:9F3C:B95C (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. This draft has been rejected and its fate is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sli45. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Ahmed Elgeady

edit

لقد قمت بإنشاء مقالة باسم Ahmed El-geady DR.X و هذه المقالة تتكلم عني ارجو المساعدة Ahmed Elgeady (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmed Elgeady: I assume you're asking about Draft:Ahmed Elgeady DR.X? It has been declined, because it isn't in English. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content in English. It is also almost entirely unreferenced. And you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Grrrr(hug)

edit

Why denying it Grrrr(hug) (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grrrr(hug): this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 9 August 2024 review of submission by OtikolenoiL

edit

Hello dear all, I ask for the proofreading of this draft which is already a Wikipedia article but in French. and we wanted to make another page in English.

Thank you cordially OtikolenoiL (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OtikolenoiL: sorry, we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, you'll need to wait until a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
Whether an article on this subject exists in the French-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is completely separate.
Who is "we" in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one individual's use only. If there are more than one of you using this account, the others need to register their own accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening dear Wikipedia,
Please note that I am the one and only person to use my Wikipedia user account OtikolenoiL (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Benkariuki

edit

I'm not sure why this afc draft has been declined while other organisations in the same industry have been published on Wikipedia with far less sources. See examples below: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDougall%27s 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellows_Auctioneers 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennants 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_(auctioneers)

I don't get the reasoning behind the decline when the sources submitted are independent, verifiable and trustworthy.

Many thanks, Ben Benkariuki (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benkariuki: it's not the quantity of sources, it's rather then quality that matters. A quick scan through the ones cited in this draft suggests they're all routine business reporting and primary sources, none of which contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP. Seeing as you've resubmitted the draft, you'll get a more thorough review once a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
As for other articles that may be out there, this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy, as we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles but rather by reference to the prevailing policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Cheers for that. You're right it's more about the quality. In my resubmission, I didn't use this argument only added more sources to try and answer the reviewers queries. I posed the question here as I couldn't understand how other Wikis get published, it seems like a different tier evaluation system applied to other submissions. Benkariuki (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Benkariuki: I haven't looked at the other articles you've pointed to so can't comment on them specifically, but in general terms, articles can come about in a variety of ways. Some may have been published by editors with sufficient permissions to publish them directly into the main article space. Others may be so old as to predate the current review processes and/or referencing and notability requirements. Some may have been originally well referenced, but over time as the content and references change, they may have deteriorated.
When we become aware of substandard articles, we try to deal with the issues, but with nearly 7m published articles (and counting), this is a mammoth task that will probably never be completed. If you come across articles that don't meet our guidelines, you're very welcome to either improvement or tag them with appropriate maintenance templates for others to action later on. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Noted! You guys have a huge task and I appreciate what you guys do to keep the site upto date. When I spot pages needing a spruce up I'll tag them as suggested. Otherwise, thanks and have a great weekend. Many thanks, Ben Benkariuki (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Benkariuki, please don't use the "but there's these other articles" argument. One of those articles you mentioned is now up for deletion, and none of them rely on a resume ("Notable auctions") in the way that your draft does. If we take that out, we have a few articles from regional newspapers and the Antiques Trade Gazette--and in the version I'm looking at, that means that of the first seven "references", three are company or directory links. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies I get your argument, and I would never use that logic to request another review when I know a draft isn't adding any value Wikipedia content. My question was purely based on what standards are applied / used to approve organisations templates so that any submissions in the future are spot on. Benkariuki (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 9 August 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:3106:E5B8:47DC:DA3A:BF3A:D9DA

edit

I Know We Haven't Made Any Mistake In This Draft We Also Want To Make Best Wikipedia. 2402:8100:3106:E5B8:47DC:DA3A:BF3A:D9DA (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see nothing of encyclopedic value in there, nothing is properly referenced, and capitalization and grammar are all wrong as well. Being a YouTuber doesn't mean you get to have a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Shubhamxrameshwar564

edit

Please Accept Our DrafDraft Shubhamxrameshwar564 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubhamxrameshwar564: Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any further. The vast, vast majority of YouTube channels — even lots with millions of subscribers — do not meet Wikipedia's strict notability guidelines. I suggest you check out the Task Center before starting another article. C F A 💬 14:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Shubhamxrameshwar564

edit

Accept our draft Shubhamxrameshwar564 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly unlikely to be accepted, I have tagged it for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads on this draft will be summarily removed as disruptive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Atelier2002

edit

Hi– I created this page and it was recently not accepted. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any and all advice on how to get the article up to the standard of acceptance.

Thanks so much Atelier2002 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters you need to write in a dry neutral tone, content like "Finding her position as a muse not quite enough to fulfill her creative feminist spirit, White turned to visual art" has no place in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Atelier2002 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Atelier2002: this draft has been declined for lack of evidence of notability. You need to show that the person meets either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ARTIST notability guideline. Please study both guidelines carefully, and provide evidence that satisfies one of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Johneverettjones

edit

Hi, I received a note that the article did not have reliable sources. This article about a Swedish-American was based on an existing article in Wikipedia in the Swedish language: 

  https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_William_Olsson

Can you help me to get this approved. They are equivalent entries.

Thanks,

John Johneverettjones (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johneverettjones: they may be "equivalent entries", but being accepted into one language version of Wikipedia doesn't in any way guarantee acceptance into another, as each version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. Acceptance into the English-language one is only possible if the draft meets our requirements, and this one falls short on both notability and verifiability fronts, both being core requirements for publication here. In short, you need to work on your referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Bryllig

edit

I have a fundamental question: Does Wikipedia accept a well-documented real object (in this case, the Stiller-Smith engine) that contains or uses the subject of the article (in this case, the MultiFAZE mechanism) as verification of the existence/notability/noteworthiness of that subject and hence its suitability for Wikipedia, or is only written verification accepted? Bryllig (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryllig If the thing has verifiable notability then a draft on it will be accepted. If it merely exists, then not. As an example, I exist, but I do not warrant an article here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing1 doesn't merely exist, there are about 20 references for it. Is that enough for it to be notable?
If Thing1 is notable and features Thing2 as the major central component, without which it would not exist, then is Thing2 also notable? Bryllig (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Notability is not inherited. ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions would seem to be aimed at editors and so requires that I abstract the information I want, which could lead to confusion. The heading Notability is inherited seems to contradict what you say. In any case, this section is not a content guideline or policy.
The engine and the mechanism are so closely associated, they are almost identical - the reason the engine was built at all was to demonstrate the mechanism and validate intensive research and analysis of the mechanism. The whole engine programme revolved around the mechanism. I cannot find anything under Notability that speaks against inheriting notability with such a close association. Bryllig (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig, if the mechanism is so crucial to the function of the engine, surely there will be sources that discuss it alongside the engine? Even more so if the engine was built purely to showcase the mechanism.
The page ColinFine linked refers to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, one of which is that notability is inherited - this is not a convincing argument per Wikipedia standards, which I think everyone here will admit can be a bit byzantine. The reason you might sometimes get linked to a page that seems to only be for published articles is because if your draft becomes an article, it may at some stage of its life be nominated for deletion. Being nominated for deletion as soon as it's accepted is not unheard of; the criteria for acceptance is that reviewers think it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion nomination. Obviously this is extremely subjective, so someone else may very well disagree that the topic is notable and nominate it as soon as they see it.
Reviewers usually try to foresee any obvious problems that would arise in a deletion discussion, so that the original author has a chance to fix them in draftspace rather than in mainspace. Deletion discussions usually only take a week, so you'd be under significantly more pressure to get the article into shape at that stage than you are now.
I had a skim through your draft and saw this: If this draft is ever accepted, I intend to tidy it up. That makes me think maybe you aren't aware that as soon as a draft is accepted, it's available for the entire world to see. The time for tidying is now, before you submit it again, so that it's ready for that!
I know there's a lot to keep in mind, so I won't overload you with information right now, but if you plan to keep working on the draft I would be happy to look over your sources and give you a quick analysis of which you can use (or what to look for if none are usable). Step one is making sure the sources you use have "MultiFAZE mechanism" written in them at least once, so we know for sure they're discussing it! Good luck and happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the open and friendly comments and offer of help.
There certainly are sources that discuss the MultiFAZE mechanism, but under a different name, because the authors were keen to present themselves as the inventors. They were part of the academic world, which is closed to normal mortals. It would appear that Prof. Stiller spotted the original patent in a database at West Virginia University (WVU), was intrigued by it and supported Mr. Smith, an engineering student, who made it the subject of his PhD thesis, and the basis for his academic career. The university patented the mechanism, giving Stiller and Smith as the inventors. That was before the Internet and online patent databases.
The priority dates of the patents for the original and the copy speak for themselves. Of particular interest, though, is that only 4 months separate the publication date of the original patent and the filing date of the first application by WVU (Serial No. 628248). One look at the drawings shows that they both cover the same mechanism.
Remarkably, Stiller's account of how he arrived at his „invention“ stops short at Archimedes' trammel (which is pretty ancient) and doesn't say how he got the idea for the eccentric gear train. The Tusi couple is closely related to Archimedes' trammel and is also very old. Since these two there has been no new mechanism for converting reciprocating motion to continuous rotary motion up until the MultiFAZE mechanism, which was then of such interest, that it was eagerly snapped up by the aforementioned gentlemen. So it does exist!
Here and now, the general opinion of the editors is evidently that the use of the MultiFAZE mechanism in the Stiller-Smith engine doesn't verify the existence of the mechanism, though no-one can explain why or quote a relevant rule. There seems to be an irrational mental block here that leaves me feeling like the one-eyed man in the valley of the blind. That wouldn't happen on Youtube. Bryllig (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bryllig, I think we may have all been talking slightly at cross-purposes - we believe the mechanism exists, that's not a problem at all; what you need to establish is that the mechanism is notable (by Wikipedia standards). It's like how obviously I exist, but I am certainly not noteworthy enough to have an article written about me!
So your goal is to find sources that discuss this mechanism and its uses. For suitable sources, I like to link WP:42, the 'golden rule': you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). All three criteria must be met for a source to establish notability of the topic, and usually reviewers will want to see three or more good sources to prove that the topic is notable. This is why we're asking for articles (books, papers, etc) that talk about the mechanism. If it's important and well-known, as it seems to be, then surely someone has written about it and its uses.
Does that help make any more sense? StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:59, 9 August 2024 review of submission by JustinoR1996

edit

What exactly has to be notable about me? Im a local celebrity in my community and I have a historical case pending in federal court. JustinoR1996 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


What should I include to make my article worthy of nobility? JustinoR1996 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, that is what the use of the word rejected is meant to convey. Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself or publicize your legal actions against law enforcement. See WP:AUTO and WP:PROMO. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinoR1996 Your father's death might be notable, but it happens often enough to lack notability. The lawsuit might be notable, but it happens often enough to lack notability. With the publicity you have generated you are only notable for one thing if you are notable at all. Please see WP:BLP1E. Please also see WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_9&oldid=1240384932"