Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 30
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 29 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | October 1 > |
| 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. |
September 30
[edit]04:11:07, 30 September 2017 review of submission by Govinsinghthind
[edit]This is a nonprofit brand. This was attempted to be created for purely educational purposes only. Govinsinghthind (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
11:07:41, 30 September 2017 review of submission by Olavolsf
[edit]David.Moreno72 declined my submission on the grounds that 'the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Quantum Mechanics instead.'
However that page (Quantum Mechanics) is a general page on the subject, while the one I am proposing presents a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics -- one that can be traced back to many published articles and books as specified in the submission references. The page on interpretations of quantum mechanics shows that there are innumerous proposed interpretations, but the one I am describing is not presented there and also nowhere in Wikipedia (to my knowledge). The proposed page is thus similar in form to the one on the Ensemble Interpretation or the one on the Stochastic Interpretation or even the one on Bohm's Interpretation, despite being different in content.
In fact, whenever the article is accepted, if it will be, I was planning to make a connection to the page on interpretations of quantum mechanics to make it more complete by including this somewhat new approach to the subject (approximately 25 years old).
Thus, I would like to request a review of the submission on these terms.
Olavolsf (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Olavolsf. To determine whether the topic merits a stand alone article, reviewers are looking for independent coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Eight of the cited sources are written by Olavo, so they are not independent. Bohm 1951, Mehra 1987, Coffey and Kalmikov 2012, Takabayasi 1954, Parr and Yang 1989, de la Peña and Cetto 1982, Dodonov and Dodonov 2015, and Shewell 1959 don't mention Olavo's Interpretation.
- That leaves Alonso et al. 2001. It mentions Olavo, but on its own it is insufficient evidence that Olavo's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is notable - that the world at large has paid sufficient attention to it to justify including an entire article on the topic in a general purpose encyclopedia.
- I recommend that you add a paragraph about Olavo's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to either Interpretations of quantum mechanics or Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics, as you see fit. Then if you still wish to pursue a stand-alone Wikipedia article on the topic, I suggest you get involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. They may be able to assist you with demonstrating encyclopedic notability and writing for an encyclopedia, which is very different from most academic writing. They can also point you to other articles where your technical expertise could be helpful. Fewer than 2% of all Wikipedia articles about physics are ranked "good" or better by the community, so there is much room for improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
12:40:35, 30 September 2017 review of submission by JELOUWEX123
[edit]- JELOUWEX123 (talk · contribs)
JELOUWEX123 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @JELOUWEX123: Hello, Jelouwex. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Although you didn't actually ask a question, I can see what the problem is with your submission -- you created a sub-page of your Sandbox, but submitted it for review without first copying the content from the Sandbox into that sub-page. You probably want to do that before re-submitting. But be aware that being 14 years old and having a YouTube channel will probably not be enough to justify having an article on Wikipedia. If you re-submit the draft in its current form, it will likely be rejected again. I hope this response is helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
21:46:43, 30 September 2017 review of submission by Kindness33
[edit]- Kindness33 (talk · contribs)
Hello. I was writing to find out when my page will become accepted on wiki. Titled "Ursula Hayden". Can someone also please help me if it needs any changes. Thank you.
Kindness33 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Kindness33#Paid editors are required to declare as such. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
