Help desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

October 23

"Author needs a Wikipedia page first."

The stated reason of decline at: Draft:Daughter of Tintagel - but I'm pretty sure this 'requirement' is made up and there are countless articles about the works of authors (and studios/companies) with no articles yet. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article has been accepted for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:42, 23 October 2017 review of submission by Strongline123

Strongline123 (talk · contribs)

Hi! I have tried to write an article about Magnus Penker, and it have been declined 3 times. I have (well, I think have) updated the draft from the reviewers suggestion/input, but its still being declined. What i'm doing wrong? I would be grateful for all help!

Strongline123 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongline123 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongline123: Hello, Strongline. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. I see that you've already contacted two of them and I trust that both will provide you with some detailed assistance. Note however that, by asking one of them for help on your own talk page, the reviewer might not be aware that you asked for assistance. You'll do better if you re-post your Talk page response onto the Talk page of that reviewer. And if neither of these reviewers gets back to you in a few days, feel free to ask here again.

Before posting here, I took a quick look at your draft and I too am not immediately convinced that the subject of the draft has achieved encyclopedic notability. For one thing, the main response to the initial declines appears to have been the addition of lengthy block quotes that discuss the field in which the subject operates, but that do not discuss the subject at all. And for another, I'm not convinced that the number of "Google Scholar hits" for the book he co-authored is a decisive factor when assessing the notability of the co-author. It might well be that the book has achieved encyclopedic notability, but that the co-author has not. I would be a bit more impressed if you could point us to large "hit" numbers for the other things that he has written.

I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Hi NewYorkActuary! Thank you very much for your input! The reason why I wrote my answer on my talk page was that the user "Chris troutman", who reviewed my draft, have the following message on his side: "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place "Talkback" on my page as I may have missed your response." But I can re-post on his talk page as well. The reason why I write about the field Penker operates in its because many scientists, experts etc is using his models, work etc "in depth". They are quoting/using Mr penker as a reference. I can understand the argument with "co-author" does not have notabillity but the book has, but in this case the book is about a new extension (Penker-Eriksson extension), a toolbox, diagram dialog, business modeling within UML and how to practical use it in business/organisations etc. If you search for just "Magnus Penker" in Google Scholar you will get over 400 hits. Many experts in the field have accredited him, for an example: Philippe Kruchten, Professor of Software Engineering at University of British Columbia and known as Director of Process Development (RUP) at Rational Software. I have one question, do you know why Penkers colleague/co-author Hans-Erik Erikssons, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Erik_Eriksson, wikipedia site is up? What is the difference between that site and Mr Penkers site (in form of notability?). Strongline123 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongline123: Regarding the response to Chris, that message on their Talk page is a fairly common one. But it presupposes that Chris has placed your Talk page on their watchlist. And that's likely what's causing the problem here -- the "draft has been declined" notification that you received was sent by an automated system that did NOT place your Talk page on Chris's watchlist. So, you'll probably want to make them aware of the response, either by re-posting your response to their Talk page or by just dropping a polite note on their Talk page informing them of the response on your Talk page. I trust that you will get a response using either approach.

As for the existence of the article on Eriksson, Wikipedia has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. My reading of the Erikkson article raises some of the same concerns I have with yours and I'm not entirely sure that Wikipedia should have that article, either.

I understand that the notability question is of the utmost importance to you, but I pray that you understand that this Help Desk is not the appropriate forum for having that discussion. I'll just briefly note that I took a look at the Unified Modeling Language article, which is one of the oldest articles here on Wikipedia. The Eriksson/Panker text does not appear to have ever been mentioned in that article in anything other than a "further reading" context. Of course, you can argue that the editors of that article have failed to recognize the true significance of the Eriksson/Panker text, but it could equally well be argued that all major modeling techniques have specific variations that apply to specific circumstances and that the Eriksson/Panker text is just another example of that. I remain unconvinced that this co-author has achieved encyclopedic notability, but the next reviewer might feel differently and I encourage you to give it your best shot. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:37:52, 23 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Georgweinand

Georgweinand (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Yves Weinand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I submitted a draft (about Yves Weinand, professor of architecture and engineer) twice and got twice rejected. As far as I can see I followed all requirements and don't know what to improve anymore. Could somebody please indicate me more precisely, or give direct assistance, what is still missing and how to bring it on Wikipedia (a similar article already exists on French Wikipedia about the same person) ?

Georgweinand (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There simply isn't enough sources, and the style is not ready for WikiPedia. Look at the style of other articles, and you'll get an idea. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgweinand: Hello, Georg. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see three problems with your draft.

First, links to the websites of organizations that are mentioned do not really count as sources. They certainly confirm the existence of the organization, but that isn't what is needed (especially for those organizations that already have an article here on Wikipedia). What is needed are sources that confirm statements being made about the subject of the draft. In your introduction, there was one such source, which I reformatted using the {{cite web}} template. I noticed that you were already using that template, but were not correctly specifying the URLs. I hope that the one that was re-formatted can serve as an example as to how the rest should be done.

Second, a lot of what might be sources are showing up in your draft as in-article external links (i.e., links inside the main article that take the reader outside of Wikipedia). I didn't go through all of the ones in the "Projects" section, but if there are any that confirm the association of the subject with the project, then the link should be converted to a formatted footnote. And similarly, you might want to re-format the list of publications, using either the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates. Each of those templates has a "url=" parameter that can house what are now in-article external links.

But even if you find an appropriate amount of sourcing and present it properly, there is still a problem with the tone of the writing. "Innovative designs", "unique expertise" and similar phrases are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Instead, this is the kind of verbiage that is normally associated with promotional literature and, frankly, I think your submission could have been validly declined for its excessive use of this type of language. You might want to take a look at some of our better-quality articles on architects, such as John Douglas (architect), I. M. Pei or William Burges, to see the neutral tone of voice that is expected on Wikipedia.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice that your username is very similar to that of the subject of your draft. If you have a personal relationship with the subject, you will need to declare it. For more information on this, see our conflict-of-interest guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request re: Draft:Paz Cohen

CAN I please get an answer about why the page was decline — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAL-meirov 5 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TAL-meirov 5: Lack of Sources. You need to back up what is said. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TAL-meirov 5: Hello, Tal. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I don't know whether the subject of your draft has achieved encyclopedic notability, but I do know that you've done a poor job of making the case.

Your sourcing takes the form of a series of external links that have been dumped at the top of the draft. This is not an appropriate way to source a Wikipedia article. Instead, I encourage you to read WP:REFB, which will provide you with the basic techniques needed for adding "in-line citations". Doing so will allow readers to connect the statements in the draft with the sources that are being used to support them and this, in turn, will allow the reviewers to make a more-informed assessment of the subject's notability. Also, there are a few specific things that you can do to improve the usefulness of the sourcing. First, don't bother using the article on the Hebrew Wikipedia as a source -- we don't accept any language's Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Second, the links need to be more specific. The BarnaVJorden site does indeed corroborate the subject's receipt of an award, but it doesn't do so on its main page. Instead, it does so on a sub-page, and it is the sub-page you should be linking to. And third, although Hebrew language sources are acceptable, you will do better by recognizing that most readers here don't read Hebrew. And so, when you convert your sourcing to in-line references, you can help the reader by adding English-language translations of the titles. This can be done more easily if the references are formatted using the {{cite web}} template. Not only does this template automatically format your references (which is very helpful in itself), but it also has a "trans-title" parameter with which you can supply the translated title.

I can't say whether doing all of these things will cause your draft to be accepted for publication, but it will certainly improve its chances. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Translation is probably worth noting too. - Yuhong (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:59:00, 23 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Joshtangk

Joshtangk (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Josh Tangk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is my article declined?

Why did you decline it, i am going to be heartbroken. please don't i am very poor

Joshtangk (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I too am very poor. But not very much heartbroken by the decline of your draft. It has been marked for speedy deletion as a hoax. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:30, 23 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah

Adarrah (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Helen and Frank Schreider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As requested, Helen Schreider as the holder of copyrights on the 5 photos within the article on her and her late husband, with several days to spare, submitted her declaration of consent re the use of these photos. There was an automatic confirmation of receipt with reference to [Ticket#2017101810012662]. There was also this statement: “If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.” The photos have already been deleted. I don’t know what the procedure is at this stage. If possible, could someone please investigate this matter, retrieve Helen Schreider’s declaration of consent, and replace these photos so that the article can be finally resubmitted.

Adarrah (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adarrah:, I wouldn't worry too much about the pictures in the article for the draft version. I don't know the policies around pictures, but you can be pretty confident that the pictures do not sway the reviewers. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adarrah: If the OTRS process has indeed been successfully completed, getting the files restored should be easy. But that's not the kind of thing we do here at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. You'll do better by requesting assistance at the OTRS noticeboard. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response this morning. I have followed this up at “OTRS noticeboard” and discovered: "Please be aware that there is sometimes a backlog in processing tickets sent to the permissions-en queue. This backlog is currently 254 days." Great....that's 8 1/2 months! So I am going to resubmit the article without the photos. Thank you for responding to my inquiry so quickly. Adarrah (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adarrah: Hello again. I'm not an expert on the OTRS system, so I apologize in advance if what I am about to write proves incorrect. But I've seen OTRS templates that say (in effect) "an OTRS ticket has been received and is currently pending review". My understanding is that a file will be allowed to remain on-site pending that review. I see that, although you visited the OTRS Noticeboard, you didn't actually post a question there. I encourage you to do so, asking whether it is possible to get those images restored pending the review. Another thing to consider -- if the permissions received from Ms. Schreider are broad enough, you might be able to upload the images to the Commons, where the OTRS backlog is considerably shorter. This, too, is something you might want to ask about at the OTRS Noticeboard. Good luck with it. And if anything I've written here proves to be incorrect, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]