Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 April 6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 5 << Mar | April | May >> April 7 >
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.


April 6

edit

02:20:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

edit

It is imperative to know that what else apart from credible links could one cite in references. And if WiJungle page is an advert then what would you call these pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trishneet_Arora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucideus There are tons of such pages available on WiKipedia.

It seems like reviewer has declined the submission with no concrete reason. Highlighting a general reason seems intended.

Didgeri (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didgeri Please read other stuff exists. It is a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If the articles you reference are only sourced to press releases, they too would be inappropriate. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources] with significant coverage say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable business). Press releases and routine announcements are not independent sources, and as such do not establish notability. Coverage by a source must be in depth and that source must have chosen on their own to write about the subject, not just republish a press release. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

Hi 331dot, I respect your point and I myself being a volunteer always ensure the guidelines and benchmarks of Wikipedia. Hence while choosing the subject, I did my good amount of research to ensure that references are independent & credible. And that is why I opposed the raised point about article being entirely based on press releases. I kindly request you to go through the article and references once, you would agree that subject has been covered well by credible sources & not just the press releases.

Didgeri (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all the sources and they all are pretty much not sufficient for WP:GNG. The substantial ones are interviews, primary sources, press releases and other basically churnalisms and veiled advertisements. The closest sources to acceptable are actually about the person. Even the "Aegis Graham Bell Award" award is just a subdivision of a minor award under Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:30, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Chachanna

edit

I am needing help creating citations to publish my article. My information came from a website and I am looking for the best way to publish without being rejected again. Chachanna (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chachanna No one can help you create citations. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The only way you can do this is to hope that independent sources take note of the subject you wrote about and choose on their own to write about it themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:02:43, 6 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcusjp10

edit


Hi, Why was my article not published. Please tell me how to fix and improve it.

Marcusjp10 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcusjp10 Your draft was essentially a promotional or advertising piece about who I assume is yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where a person must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject says about itself, only in what others say about it. Please also review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you need to essentially forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources state; most people cannot do this about themselves. An article about yourself is also not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:07, 6 April 2020 review of draft by Kathrynwatson

edit


Kathrynwatson (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Hello,

My last reviewer commented that I was being paid to write the article. I used to work for Jasper Hope at Dubai Opera but not anymore. I am not being paid to write this article. I just thought that given his status here in Dubai and internationally he is notable and therefore a wikipedia page should exist for him. There are a number of references in the article illustrating he is notable including ones for some off the awards he has won. Any help you cam offer would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you, Kathryn

Kathrynwatson Interviews with the subject are primary sources and not acceptable for establishing notability. Any person or organization can create an "award" and give it out(the "331dot award for the 100 best editors"), but the giving of the award needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources, not just a press release or brief announcement of the award(especially if by the organization itself)- as the giving of Academy Awards or Tony Awards has. The article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about Mr. Hope. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:13, 6 April 2020 review of submission by AlejandroLeloirRey

edit

hallo, I was given some advises on how to change the references and I would like to submit it again, how can I do it? thank you AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroLeloirRey Your draft had been rejected, not just declined, meaning there is unfortunately little chance it can be improved to the point where it can be formally a part of the encyclopedia. The person you wrote about does not seem to meet the notability criteria. If that's true, there isn't anything you can do. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thank you for the info. I was told that since there is a biography of this person written by one of the most important italian writes (Walter Siti, Strega Prize 2013) published by one of the very best Italian editor (Rizzoli Libri) if I used this book as the main reference things would be different and so I did. Anyway, thank you again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I am sorry if I disturb you but may be I am not ready to give it up, could you please give it a look and tell me what is your impression and what could be changed. There are still a few things I might improve but let me be honest, I gave a look to other gay porn star bios here and most of them have one or two references, in Carlo's Bio I used a very important and reliable book, news from national news papers for the recent facts and articles from AVN and XBiz for porn fact (wikipedia says explicitly that those are good references for porn). only for a few detail about his academic career I used (apart from the book) his institutional page on his university's web stie, which being a universtity web site I consider reliable. I would really appreciate if you could give me an hand.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlejandroLeloirRey I cannot read Italian so it is hard for me to evaluate the sources, but they seem to me to be brief mentions or routine announcements, neither of which establish notability; either the definition of a notable actor or a notable professor(though combining the two is certainly interesting). A university profile is not an independent source as they are usually based on what the person told them. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot which sources are you specifically talking about? 90% is based on the book which is Carlo Masi (real name Ruggero Freddi) biography. I didn't use as a source anything that wasn't entirely about Carlo Masi apart from things I used to prove very specific facts about his porn career which was 10 years ago, so you can understand that most of the material is not online anymore. If you believe that those few references are a problem I could remove them and the information I took from them, it is not much. would that make any difference? would you than also recommend me to remove the university web site as a source? thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you do both of those things. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot ok, I did it :-) Now the only sources not entirely on Carlo Masi are one review of the Theatre show he did in Rome (but his name is in bold and his picture is the only one in the article) and an interview to the writer of his biography where he says that the biography is entirely based on actual facts but some of the conversations have been made up because they have actually happened years before so it is impossible to tell the exact words said then. I also used a couple of interviews but only in the "media attention" paragraph, I think there it's appropriated to used them, right?. could you please give it a look and give me more advises? thank you very much.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:38, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Saskia Schuldig

edit


Saskia Schuldig (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there.

I am creating drafts but not sure why they are declining. I'm providing history to a company as I see that it is not listed on wikipedia, none of the SA service providers in web hosting are.

The previous message I received was that it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia however if I look at the five pillars listed I don't infringe on any of them.

Please can you assist me in submitting a piece that would be considered "according to the purpose of Wikipedia"

Thanks so much

I have rejected your draft, the company is not notable and you are being paid to edit but not disclosing this as you are required to do by the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there.

I am not an external writer being paid to edit. I am an employee at the company and am trying to add our information onto Wikipedia to provide users more insight to the history of the company. Based on your rejection, you suggest that the company is not notable. Can you please advise, what notability are you referring to as there are a few points under notability? Our company and the board members listed have a large number of coverage across media sites, thus why I cannot understand the point/which point of notability you are referring to.

Please advise, thanks so much

15:51:02, 6 April 2020 review of draft by Mischievousgnome

edit


Hello, I have recently created my first Wikipedia entry on a subject in the area of fundamental physics, specifically a phenomenological model of gravity involving inertia. The entry was rejected apparently within a few hours on the grounds that the references did not show the topic to be sufficiently notable. It is not clear whether the editor bothered to read the article. I made disclosure before submitting the article, and produced it using an account that I had created years ago in order to make a small edit that, to my recollection, has nothing to do with the present submission. I would like to proceed to add references from third parties in order to attempt to satisfy the notability requirement, though I note that at least one other article dealing with similar subject matter falls far short of the standard being applied in this case. (I realize that this is not deemed a valid defense, yet it does not suggest impartiality in the review process.) In the article itself I provided numerous references to illustrate various empirical tests of the theory, as well as a proposal for a crucial laboratory test, which has not yet been performed. Barring a laboratory test, the strongest evidence for the theory will come from the data gathered by one of the experiments that make up the current Insight Mars mission. I conceived the idea of creating a full Wikipedia article on the theory after making an edit to the appropriate article about the Mars experiment to indicate that a test of this theory would be one of the bonuses from the the mission. In order to demonstrate that this was fact and not my personal opinion, I cited the principal investigator at NASA, with whom my friend has been in regular contact for perhaps a decade. Upon embarking on the drafting of the article, I discovered that I had not accumulated sufficient edits to qualify as a creator, and therefore made edits to other articles in related fields so that my proposed article could be cross-referenced, a procedure I assume to be quite standard. There are now mentions of the theory that are ready to be linked to my eventual article. All this took place in the last few days. This morning I am greeted by the news that a thread in the WikiProject Physics Talk forum is accusing me of starting a single purpose account (which I have pointed out to you is not the case) created to promote my friend's publications and claiming that the theory in question is too fringe to merit mention. The edits I made are deemed proof of corrupt intent. Apart from the slanderous accusation against me personally, this disclosure reveals a prejudice against the type of theory proposed by my friend. Following a much earlier suggestion by one of the great physicists of our time, it is based on a modification of Newtonian gravitation, and its conclusions call into question both the need for Einstein relativity and the foundations of the current model of cosmology, the Big Bang theory (not the TV show). In light of the assertions on the Talk forum, it begins to appear that the air is poisoned, and I wonder if an assessment of the submission on its own merits remains possible. I should point out that my friend is an emeritus professor of engineering with a long and illustrious career in academics, also serving as director of a prestigious university. He is an expert in Newtonian mechanics and has authored and co-authored university textbooks on this topic and related engineering subjects. In addition to his publications, he has presented his theoretical work in numerous lectures at institutions of higher learning and conferences, and has endeavoured to test its validity in publications spanning a 36 year period. I am therefore in need of advice as to how to proceed with the revision and resubmission procedure, knowing that the process may be tainted by bias. Thank you for your attention. Mischievousgnome (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC

Going forward, might I suggest paragraph breaks? This wall of text was quite difficult to digest. Your comments here have made it abundantly clear that you have a COI with the subject and should properly disclose so or cease editing as your ability to stay neutral seems quite compromised. We are going to heed and give heavy credence to the Wikiproject for Physics opinion about this article. I would work with them to establish the notability of this and the factual accuracy. Until then, this article should continue to be denied. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I did use returns at the ends of paragraphs, but these seem to have been stripped. With regard to your first recommendation, I did do disclosure as per instructions. To the best of my knowledge the content of the article is entirely factual. Should the opposite be demonstrated I would be happy to make amendments. I hope that the text will be fully vetted without bias on the part of editors once additional references have been entered and the article resubmitted.Mischievousgnome (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mischievousgnome:, use two returns at a time to split up paragraphs. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mischievousgnome - The content appears to be fringe science, and appears to be an effort to use Wikipedia for original research. Portions of it read like they were either translated from French by someone who did not know the underlying subject matter, or like a piling on of academic terms. I am inclined to assume the latter, because it does not mention having been translated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:42, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Queenofboston

edit


Queenofboston (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC) I have added another references to the Financial Times covering the interview of EU Scream with the spokesperson of the European Union on the Covid-19 crisis communication. This is to substantiate that EU Scream is contributing on an ongoing basis to public policy discussions in Brussels and the EU. I accepted all recommendations of previous reviewers and deleted a reference to a Forbes online article. It is difficult to find sources that are accessible to reviewers online that are at the same time not online articles. Some articles are pay-walled and that is also discouraged by Wikipedia, based on my other experience.[reply]

Queenofboston, pay-walled sources are fine as long as they are reliable, independent, and mention the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial coverage). How about you provide what you think are the three sources you think meet the general notability criteria best and I'll see if they actually do meet the criteria. This will save reviewing time on my part. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727 Most reliable source third party coverage was in the Financial Times, below are two Financial Times links and I also copy the text because they are paywalled. Third I copy the reference in Politico to a specific episode and event by EU Scream.

https://www.ft.com/content/b3d20cce-19fe-11e9-b93e-f4351a53f1c3

Elsewhere in EU podcast land, EU Scream's latest episode looks at the merits of Macron's “citizens dialogues” to revive European democracy.

https://www.ft.com/content/b2d1cca6-38b7-11e9-b72b-2c7f526ca5d0

Podcast du jour : Economic historian Barry Eichengreen gets personal with EU Scream about his new book, The Populist Temptation, and warns that a failure to complete monetary union could be catastrophic for Europe's politics.

www.politico.eu/newsletter/politico-eu-influence/politico-eu-influence-presented-by-deutsche-borse-hearing-palooza-%E2%81%A0-on-ethics-body-%E2%81%A0proposals-huawei-ex-lobbyist-sets-up-consultancy/

TIP-TOEING AROUND THE FAR RIGHT: Should lobbyists engage with far-right and extremist lawmakers? EU Scream recently convened an ambitious group to kick-start this conversation: Michiel van Hulten, the director of Transparency International EU; Maris Hellrand, an Estonian journalist and activist; Benedikt Herges, the head of Siemens’ Brussels office; and Heather Grabbe, the director of EU affairs at Open Society Foundations. Participants were then guided by professor and activist Alberto Alemanno in drawing up some preliminary guidelines for lobbyists. If you missed the event (and a sighting of yours truly), then you can have a listen here.

There is also this article by Forbes which I find is relevant but apparently is not reliable because it is an online article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmenniethammer/2020/03/02/ai-bias-could-put-womens-lives-at-riska-challenge-for-regulators/#4fc3107f534f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenofboston (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:41, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Cavan.hill

edit

Can someone please provide me with any assistance around finalising the article before it gets submitted.
I have updated references and removed un-verifiable references. Thanks, --Cavan Hill (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Cavan Hill (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Joecoolfavors

edit


i have been working for a time on an article about a very accomplished musician, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Craig_Bailey_(musician) I have been rejected twice now because of unreliable sources...i really need to overcome this obstacle, and i am very confident ini the natability of the artist. any suggestions would help!

Joecoolfavors (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joecoolfavors Why do you have an urgent need to overcome this? The sources seem to be unchanged from previous reviews at least in terms of quality. This musician needs to have significant coverage (not just press releases, routine announcements) in independent reliable sources showing how he meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:29, 6 April 2020 review of submission by 76.88.34.163

edit


76.88.34.163 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:27, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22

edit


Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

one <ref> was missing I corrected it .please approve it is my first submission and will work hard for next submission .
User:Tejaskapoor22 - The malformed reference to Nalandalive was not the main reason why your draft was rejected. You resubmitted your draft repeatedly after User:Sulfurboy and User:Theroadislong said that you had improper sources and that your draft needed to be cleaned up. Your unreliable sources included IMDB, which is not a reliable source, a Google search, and Wikimedia Commons. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:41:23, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Gvldz

edit


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} Dario Brignole is one of the most recognized sports marketers in the US. He deals with big companies around the US promoting Hispanic talent such as Mexican players: Giovani dos Santos, Miguel Layun, Guillermo Ochoa, Jonathan dos Santos, etc. Furthermore, he has worked with MLS executives such as Don Garber who has a Wikipedia page as well. Looking for advice on how to add a Biography of him in Wikipedia.

Gvldz (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gvldz - Your draft, Draft:Dario Brignole, reads like an advertisement for the services of Brignole. He may be a notable sports marketer, but, if so, a biography of a living person in Wikipedia should focus on what independent sources have written about him, and should be neutral and not promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:27, 6 April 2020 review of submission by DigitalScholar55

edit


I would like to know the reason for requesting the speedy deletion of the draft of the Border Community independent record label page. This record label has been established since 2003 and is very well known. Several artists which have done releases on the label have a wikipedia page which links to the Border Community page, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Holden_(producer) & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Fake.

Much smaller record labels have a wikipedia page, with far less content, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Planet.

Please note that I am in no way or form affiliated with the Border Community, I am merely a fan of several of the artists which release under that label.

Do let me know how I can improve the page in such a way that it can be considered for inclusion. Thank you.

DigitalScholar55 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DigitalScholar55 - If you are not affiliated with the Border Community, your draft evidently read as if you were being paid to advertise them. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon - Thank you for the reply. Could you take a look at my draft and tell me which part of it read as being non-neutral? The article was a draft. The information I provided in it was the date of foundation of the label, who founded it, the completed infobox with metadata and the discography. I am puzzled as to how these objective facts may have been seen as attempt of advertisement. Note: I used the french wikipedia page as a template for writing it. DigitalScholar55 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DigitalScholar55 I am not an administrator. Only administrators can view deleted material. Your draft was deleted as G11, advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalScholar55 I can view it. The draft did little more than state the existence of the record label and stated records they have produced; that's why it was considered advertising. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the subject showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable organization. You offered no independent sources at all- only the label's own website. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject says about itself, only in what others say about it. Please read Your First Article for more information.
Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to be permitted; see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only deal with what we know about. The existence of an article is entirely dependent on coverage in independent sources. If a "smaller" record label gets a lot of coverage, while a larger label does not, the smaller one will merit an article and the larger one will not. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:29:40, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Argentum2f

edit


Article was rejected because of "Insufficient sourcing to establish notability".

Articles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22anderson+functions%22+magnetics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47

Books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22anderson+functions%22+magnetics

A quick look through those results will show that many of the results use, refer to, or otherwise discuss 'Anderson functions' substantively (i.e. more than a passing manner). I only referenced a couple sources originally, because that's all that's necessary to describe what "anderson functions" are. I'm not sure how to proceed. I could add lots of sources (10s, possible 100s) that make more than passing references - but's there would be no actual purpose to these other than establishing notability. I've never seen another article with a section just saying "hey, here's a ton of references just to prove I'm notable", though, so how do I proceed? (Or should I?)

Argentum2f (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argentum2f, Which one of your sources show significant independent coverage of the subject? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:16, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Kayhan2341

edit

I will love to review the subject to something more simplified and take out some details out it

Kayhan2341 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_April_6&oldid=985271609"