Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 25 << May | June | Jul >> June 27 >
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.


June 26

[edit]

00:18:01, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Stanford1993

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void| 00:18:01, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Stanford1993


Hello, I think I am auto-confirmed user but it looks like I used AOC for this article, and it will take up to 8 weeks for review. I could not find where to create an article as an auto-confirmed contributor. Do I need to redo the article as an auto-confirmed contributor, and if so, would it be possible to direct me to the way to create a new article in that way? Thank you very much. Stanford1993 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford1993 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanford1993: You are not autoconfirmed, you have only made 9 edits (you need 10). JTP (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:08, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Desantisg

[edit]


Requesting further clarity as to why my draft was rejected. It is similar to other companies. Contains sources from National Media in Canada such as the Financial Post, which is Canada's version of Wall Street Journal. The article attempts to share information about an emerging technology business in Canada that has been recognized and is growing. Would love to better understand how other businesses get featured. Thanks!

Desantisg (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desantisg. The Financial Post is a decent start, but at present the company is not notable. Most business aren't. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. Revisit the topic in a few years when it is no longer "emerging". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:58, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Pgk707

[edit]


Hi, I don't understand why this article is rejected. In a previous message I got, missing references was a reason. There are now quite some references as requested. Any help and recommendation would be highly appreciated.

Pgk707 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk707 It got rejected because there is another draft at Draft:ERCIM for the same subject. Your best bet would to be to combine the two and then submit Draft:ERCIM when you are finished. Whispering(t) 23:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:17, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Ba330

[edit]

First off, thank you for reviewing my article. I would greatly appreciate feedback to help create a very simple, easy to read article on RAYMUNDO. Ba330 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:50:12, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Alwayswriteskr

[edit]


Alwayswriteskr (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayswriteskr: - additional sources are needed which meet the in-depth/independent/reliable/secondary requirements. It's also really helpful if you can fuller refs (so they don't just appear as numbers) - Referencing for beginners can show you how :) Nosebagbear (talk)

14:30:46, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Amyefoster82

[edit]

I have taken out the quotes. I assume they are what was perceived as advocacy. Please resubmit for review. Amyefoster82 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:42, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Wordcobbler

[edit]


Wordcobbler (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This is in answer to the two messages about my article submission. To Theroadislong: I am in no one's employ, and I have no conflicts of interest. Period. To Curb Save Charmer: I don't understand why you say there are no sources attached to the reviews of my books. The reliable, independent sources, from The New York Times to Scientific American, Los Angeles Times, Publishers Weekly, etc., are all listed plainly following the review excerpts. None is from a dust jacket. Did you not see that? As to awards and being written about, there are many WP articles that violate that criterion. To cite only two: George Taber, whose notability is based on a four-paragraph Time article that led to a wine tasting. Nothing written about him, no awards. Charles Trueheart, who has had a nice career, but has received no awards or notices and no reviews of his one published book. How do you justify rejecting my article while approving theirs?Wordcobbler (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordcobbler:. If you are claiming to be Joseph Harriss ("reviews of my books") and to have no conflict of interest ("I have no conflicts of interest. Period."), then you don't grasp what a conflict of interest is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:13, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Parth239

[edit]


Greetings!

I'm Parth Bhatt, a high school student and I have undertaken over 250 courses by organisations like United Nations, United States Institute of Peace and Peace Operations Training Institute, USA. I have several achievements of national and international level.

I wanted to have a wikipedia page on me so that people and children of my age group can get to know about me and get in contact with me for help in completing courses. I want the youth to be aware of the current global issues as they are the future. As a child, I realised that I need to take part in empowering others in order to make this world a better pace to live. I did not want to be the one who focuses only on academics but a person with practical knowledge and experience.

Most of my references and citations are offline. Can anyone please help me in making the article.

Thanking you with kind regards, Parth Bhatt

Parth239 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:00, 26 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A9AD:5A8:E3BE:41E7

[edit]
why is this taking so long, the movie comes out in 1 month

2600:1700:93B0:1350:A9AD:5A8:E3BE:41E7 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:53, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Floydhome

[edit]

I'm not sure that I understand why our page was rejected. can you please provide more information? Floydhome (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is written as an advert, the topic is not notable. The only source provided is an original source made by the company subject. Articles require multiple independent and reliable sources for approval and move to main-space and Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only. You have a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:32, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet

[edit]


I've added a few more secondary sources, let me know how it looks. Thanks.

Swampcygnet (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:24:48, 26 June 2019 review of draft by 50.236.252.20

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

The draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Touchstone_(software) has been completely reworked and new sources brought in to validate the legitimacy of its claim to Wikipedia-worthiness. However, the newest draft has been again denied due to issues with "reliable sources". Can someone please point out which sources referenced in the draft are unreliable? Thank you. 50.236.252.20 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told before "Those sources that arguably are independent do not mention Touchstone at all. Those that mention Touchstone are all written by AIR. Wikipedia requires secondary sources, not just what a company says about its own product." Please also read WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

These are not written by AIR and are not quoting AIR. They list information about the product that came from, one presumes, the investigations of the writer:
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/risk/downloads/crs-geac-multiline-data-schema-consultation-document-v0.1.pdf
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/08/17/498511.htm


While these quote someone from AIR, they also include their own research:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/08/17/498511.htm
https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/CAT/2014/P2WAITEPresentation.pdf


Furthermore, how are these last two not reliable sources? Are the editors of Wikipedia suggesting that material from the Insurance Journal doesn't make for reliable source material, even though Insurance Journal is a distinguished publication in the insurance industry and its material is already used as sources on other Wikipedia entries, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Travelers_Companies? And are the editors of Wikipedia suggesting that material from the Actuaries Institute doesn't make for reliable source material, even though it is THE professional body for actuaries in Australia and its material is already used as sources on other Wikipedia entries, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss, and even has its own Wikipedia entry, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuaries_Institute? Please be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.236.252.20 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other crap exists the /Actuaries Institute is a blatant advert and copyright violation I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:44, 26 June 2019 review of draft by AlpacaWiki

[edit]


User:GSS moved the article to draft space for lack of citations from reliable, independent sources (and/or because he accused me of being a paid writer ?!?). I answered here, but didn't receive a reply from him since.

I agree that the Functionality section of the article was a bit low on sources/citations. This was because the information was gathered from the website and documentation, which I verified by actually using the software. I now added references to the website where I felt it was necessary. I was just wondering what the typical way of handling such situation is, because I checked various other Wikipedia articles of open-source software and it seems to be similar with some of them.

Thanks for taking time to review and help.

AlpacaWiki (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlpacaWiki I took a gander through your sources all of them seem to be primary sources. Which are great for proving something exists however they aren't all that great at proving how something is significant enough for inclusion here at Wikipedia. For that you need secondary sources, which are good at showing why something should be included here on Wikipedia. Whispering(t) 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_June_26&oldid=984855907"