Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 9 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 11 >
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.


December 10[edit]

01:37:24, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Yosoemon[edit]

Hello, I recently translated the page on Ujihiro Iga from Japanese into English (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%8A%E8%B3%80%E6%B0%8F%E5%BA%83). The submission was rejected (understandably so, in hindsight) for lacking enough reliable sources. As of now, the only source listed on the Japanese page is the same one I used, which is a history provided by the city of Sukumo, where the subject is buried. My question is, are additional non-English sources acceptable? Or, will this page need to have references that are available in English? Also, is there a general number of additional sources I should seek out? Thank you for your assistance! Yosoemon (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yosoemon (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosoemon: Editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their topic. English sources are preferred when they are available, but non-English sources are acceptable. Try to consult: Mikesh, Robert C.; Abe, Shorzoe (1990). Japanese aircraft 1910-1941. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-563-7. If it contains at least a few paragraphs about Iga, it could serve as your second source. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you very much for your helpful response! This sounds like a good plan. Yosoemon (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:18, 10 December 2020 review of submission by PES-Master1[edit]


I am unware of how to create pages for footballers, could you allow myself to know how to create those ?

PES-Master1 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PES-Master1: First, you want to gather sources. Verifyability is one of the core principles on Wikipedia. More speficially, you want to look for reliable sources writing about your footballer in some detail. If you cant find at least three ones, you are wasting your time. Note that Transfermarkt is not regarded reliable. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:53, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Dukerala[edit]


I'm extremely sorry that I was unable to understand specifically what the error was as I'm very new in creating articles in Wiki. I've removed the content that has been copied from an external site. I request you to kindly help me in resolving the issues and making the article live. Dukerala (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dukerala  Done. SMB99thx my edits! 08:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:44, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Shukanto94[edit]


This is an NGO based out of India, which has done credible work in the sector of emergency medical services and occupational health in India. The article clearly specifies what all activities the foundation has done and has referenced to media articles and Government of India websites wherever applicable; all properly referenced. Please review the article or explain how it can be developed further before rejection. Shukanto94 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shukanto94 I'm glad this organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not a place to tell about the good work an organization does. The draft is largely sourced to primary sources or press release type articles, not in depth coverage by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:55, 10 December 2020 review of submission by PortySasmo[edit]


I have had an article declined for publication about a 'free school' my father attended (Sherwood School above). However I was modelling it on a similar page for another sister establishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilquhanity_School I do not understand why the Kilquanity page has been published when mine is refused. If you can help that would be great- thanks

PortySasmo (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PortySasmo. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. Anyone can publish here, without even being aware of the community's policies and guidelines, so the existence of an article does not mean it meets those rules or has been "accepted". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to improving or deleting the article yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best.
The problem with the draft is its sources. All sources must be reliable, and the bulk of any article should come from independent, secondary sources. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three such sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Epsom & Ewell History Explorer is user-generated content, and Sisyphus is a self-published blog, so they do not meet the encyclopedia's definition of reliable sources. Neither may be used. The only other source is published by the school, so is not independent. A local library or historical society may be able to help you find acceptable sources. But for many places of local interest, such sources simply don't exist, so they will never be suitable topics for Wikipedia. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, if you're determined to memorialize the school somewhere. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:00, 10 December 2020 review of draft by Stuartwilks[edit]


Hi,

This article keeps on being rejected on the basis there are not enough secondary references, but other than some of the direct references to cases which the subject was involved with, I've kept the content within guidelines, using independent secondary references, such as directories and newspaper articles. It is hard to see how the piece could be made any more accurate. The subject is one of the most senior characters in UK public life and the judiciary of England and Wales, as indicated by all the references. Is someone with an understanding of the UK legal and political system perhaps able to opine, as editors so far seem to have come from the USA, which I suspect means they have limited understanding of the concepts being conveyed?

§

Stuartwilks (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartwilks An understanding of the UK legal system is not required to know that the sources you have offered do not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The sources you have offered merely cite what the person has done, they do not have in depth coverage of the subject itself. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:28, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Sridharsantoshkumar[edit]


Sridharsantoshkumar (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sridharsantoshkumar You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. We are only interested in what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:31, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Harpaalsingh[edit]


Kindly review the changes made and suggest if anything is pending to approve the Anand Internation College of Engineering Wikipedia page.

Harpaalsingh (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Harpaalsingh[reply]

Harpaalsingh The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, and it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this at this time. Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:20, 10 December 2020 review of submission by TBR-qed[edit]

SK2242 declined my sandbox proposal to revise existing Problem of induction article. I responded with a table to provide evidence to revert his decision, but bad formatting destroyed table so SK2242 could not read it. I have tried to reformat so a new reviewer can judge my case.

The following table shows scholars covered in present article, in my primary source Sloman and Lagnado (S&L), and in my proposal. It is evidence for my charge that existing article is biased and obsolete. I then reconstruct how I got to point of 3 reviewers misclassifying my proposed revision. I conclude with classifications I find justify accepting my revision.

COVERAGE: Scholars discussed in present article, in Sloman and Lagnado article, and in my proposal: 

                       Present article		S&L		my proposal
    Philosophers    	Hume			Hume		Hume
                       Popper					Popper
                       Goodman			Goodman		Goodman
                       Pyrrhonists		Logical empiric	Pyrrhonists
                       Carvaka			Hempel		Carvaka
                       Quine			Quine		Dewey
                       Stove & Williams.       Miller & Lipton
                       Campbell & Costa	Carnap
                       al-Ghazali & Ockham	Hacking
                       Scotus			Nagel
                       Salmon			Kuhn

    Hard scientists	0			0		Duhem

    Social scientists	0			Rosch		Rosch
                                               Tversky
                                               Kahneman	Kahneman
                                               Shepard		
                                               Rips
                                               Carey
                                               Sloman
                                               Osherson
                                               Lopez
                                               Hampton
                                               Gelman & Coley
                                               Mandler & McDonough
                                               Nisbett
                                               Gopnik & Meltzoff
                                               and more.

Allow me to reconstruct my situation.

I read S&L “Problem of induction” after reading WP “Problem of induction.” I quickly recognized the bias and obsolescence of the WP article because it ignored the range of information in S&L. Column 2 shows scholars ignored in column 1. Noting the absent information and classifying it as violating WP NPOV rule is at once a descriptive and evaluative operation.

I thought the bias could not be eliminated by adding S&L info to present article--standard procedure to correct missing info--because S&L content and definitions framed problem differently. I was delighted to learn that SANDBOX provided means for me to attempt revision, maintaining limited present article content while showing relevance of column 2 info. Column 3 shows my effort to achieve that balance.

Editors Dominic Meyers & Biogeographist, unaware of my evidence of bias and assuming present article to conform to WP protocols, logically classified my sandbox revision as violating NPOV & NOR rules and reading like an essay—unencyclopedic. SK2242, equally unaware of evidence in table, accepts their negative classifications of my revision.

These editors' classifications of my revision are mistaken.

My proposed revision does not violate NPOV because it adds relevant info to present WP article, partially correcting its bias and obsolescence.

My proposed revision does not violate NOR because it reports existing scholarship in S&L.

Permitting publication of my proposal, despite its flaws, will improve WP by pointing out unrecognised bias and obsolescence and opening subject of induction to continuous correction and improvement.

TBR-qed (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. We're an encyclopaedia, and thus should not be engaging in original research. You may not think it's original research, but I see a fair amount of synthesis in Wikipedia's voice and excessive quotes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:24, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka[edit]


Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka: Wikipedia is not for promotion. This draft is full of puffery words. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:07, 10 December 2020 review of submission by JoshKaine[edit]

Im requesting a re-review because i feel like the person that reviewed the wikipedia didn't give the artist a fair chance because i see people with public wikipedia's that only have 2 or 3 reference's he has a little bit of news even tho its not a whole lot. He's also still notable because he has pictures on his google overview which not many artist have JoshKaine (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshKaine: What you're effectively arguing is that because you've seen undersourced articles about potentially non-notable people, we should allow this undersourced article about a potentially non-notable person to exist in live space. Does that sound rational when I phrase it that way? No. When he has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of him, then you can resubmit. Significant coverage = in-depth writing about him and his work. Reliable sources = mainstream news sites, mainstream, established music magazines, not blogs or content harvesters. And independent means that he can't have participated in the write-up. So, interviews don't help establish notability, things he says on his own blog or that his music label says about him on their website, etc. Hope that helps. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:20, 10 December 2020 review of draft by UmberEarth[edit]


Hello!

I was wondering if I could get some additional feedback on my draft for the article on Haresh Sapra. I have currently made the following changes: 1. Added additional sourcing to show that he is currently a senior editor of an academic journal (Journal of Accounting Research) 2. Added a link to his official faculty page

Would you prefer some more articles from newspapers? I'm not really sure how relevant those types of articles are for academics. Specifically which would you prefer?: 1. Haresh's opinion pieces on Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc. 2. He has also been covered in newspapers but they don't really say too much other than he's a faculty member at Booth or that he has published some paper.

Alternatively - I can link more articles from the Chicago Booth Review, but I am concerned about perceptions of bias for an institution writing about their own faculty.

Thanks for the help!

UmberEarth (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:52, 10 December 2020 review of draft by TherealMDB[edit]


TherealMDB (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AFC Help Desk,

I am new to Wikipedia, and my draft for ZetrOZ Systems, a biomedical device company in Trumbull, CT, was declined because there was no proof of notability. After looking through Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, I am wondering if you could show me why the sources I selected are not reliable and secondary.

My draft includes 36 sources, and although some of them may not meet the guidelines for notability, I am confused why none of them do. I tried to diversify my sources between independent articles, official company reports, academic journal publications, grant applications, and patents. Most of the independent articles are from established newspapers, such as the Ithaca Times, Trumbull Times, and Connecticut Post, and the journal publications are not from predatory journals.

I understand the reasoning behind declining the draft, but I also want to understand which of my sources do and do not establish notability in case I ever decide to write another Wikipedia article. Any help will be greatly appreciated, and I hope to contribute more in the future!

Happy holidays!

TherealMDB (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your relationship to this company? Disclosure of conflict of interest, especially paid editing, is not optional but rather mandatory.
2. ™ and ® symbols have no place here, and leave us suspecting the very worst.
3. Patents, grant applications and "official company reports" are all self-generated and totally fail our standards for reliable sources.
4. Receipt of obscure industry-specific prizes is not evidence of notability. Basically, any award which is not notable enough to have an article about it here, should be omitted. Nobel Prizes? Hugo Award? Grammy? BAFTA? MacArthur Foundation "Genius Grant"? Those belong in articles. "The coveted Silver Sow Award"? Not so much. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_December_10&oldid=994510578"