Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 17 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 19 >
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.


February 18

[edit]

00:59:21, 18 February 2021 review of submission by DeepestTurtle

[edit]

The article was rejected because "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". But I have included 2 links to independent sources (from Stanford university and Oxford university) and they both have a good amount of information on the subject. The subject is somewhat new so there isn't a lot of discussion of it in the public sphere. It is still mostly in academia, but I believe it will become more well known in the future. I also intend to add more information to it over time as I myself discover more. But I wanted to get it out there in case others had things to contribute (which will be good for me also.)

DeepestTurtle (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeepestTurtle Most reviewers look for three or more independent reliable sources with significant coverage. The fact that you say that this subject is new, and you say it will be more well known in the future, likely means it is too soon for an article about it. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepestTurtle: I too have misgivings about the draft. However, in addition to the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer reviewed journal has published a dedicated issue on the topic of computer modeling in philosophy, which falls within the definition of computational philosophy. On the strength of those sources I've accepted the stub. If it doesn't survive in article space, you'll have to wait until the field has gained greater acceptance and people routinely use the term "computational philosophy" instead of long winded descriptions like "applications of logical and computational techniques to the development of synchronic and diachronic models of individual and collective cognition." --Worldbruce (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:27, 18 February 2021 review of draft by Catxx

[edit]


I'm not sure what more I can get for the Wikipedia gods on this subject. I've pulled in 15 references for a relatively small article including national press. What is it you want?! They're a welfare raising charity that deserve the recognition. Unfortunately it looks like they'll end up being yet another "not good enough" charity for the Wikipedia gods.

Catxx (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catxx: Though I understand your frustration, what article creators need to demonstrate is (as indicated at the top of the draft) that the subject has received significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So which of those references are all three: reliable published sources, that speak about the Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund in deep detail, and that are independent of the subject. Looking at the first six references, I don't see anything that clearly meets these three criteria. I see their own website cited twice. I see a passing mention in the Guardian, I see a passing mention from the BBC, and I'm not sure the others would qualify as reliable. That's the threshold you need to be demonstrating is met. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well delete them then. There aren't going to be sources talking about them in particular, rather referring to their campaigns that they have started and they champion. Where you may see a "passing mention", I see a campaign that they have launched. That's the thing they want talking about. Not themselves. Such is the problem of representing charities on Wikipedia and why I've seen a few deleted now. --Catxx (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:16, 18 February 2021 review of draft by Medha tiwari

[edit]


Medha tiwari (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medha tiwari: नमस्कार मेधा तिवारी और अंग्रेजी भाषा विकिपीडिया पर आपका स्वागत है। यह अच्छा है कि आपने इसमें एक लेख जोड़ने का फैसला किया है। दुर्भाग्य से, मुझे आपको यह बताना होगा कि हम केवल अंग्रेजी में लेख स्वीकार कर सकते हैं। कृपया लेख को अंग्रेजी में अनुवाद करें या अपनी भाषा में Wikipedia का उपयोग करें। शुभकामनाएं, Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:54, 18 February 2021 review of draft by 96.255.132.79

[edit]


This is a great personality however most details are in printed form do you internet challenges in Africa. 96.255.132.79 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your review. I’m currently located in the US but making serious effort to bring Africa to light. The biggest challenge is that there is little online information and that hinders a lot of African documentation. However we have to start somewhere. The details were from a hard copy book which I am willing to scan and send . Pls feel free to email me at isnsaka@gmail.com

You might ask for help of Project Members from the Wikiproject Arica Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:35, 18 February 2021 review of submission by 2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:957F:DF01:7A70:8A4B Draft:Samuray Cuba confirmation pending

[edit]


To whom it may concern, could anyone support be either give me any sort of feedback regarding the following page: Draft:Samuray Cuba Thanks in advance for the help. Thanks a lot, Kind regards2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:957F:DF01:7A70:8A4B (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:29, 18 February 2021 review of draft by Drkarenkaiser

[edit]


Drkarenkaiser (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drkarenkaiser, you might have please a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that sums it up. hope that was of help. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My page was rejected and I don't understand why and what I need to change.

18:56:33, 18 February 2021 review of submission by ACSP01

[edit]


ACSP01 (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACSP01, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:20, 18 February 2021 review of submission by Alex2830

[edit]


I have a question. Why was my draft declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex2830 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex2830. Draft User:Alex2830/sandbox was declined because it is about a topic on which Wikipedia already has an article, desert. (Indeed, it's an unattributed 98.8% copy of the first four paragraphs of that article, and so a copyright violation, although a repairable one.) A second article on the same topic will not be published. You are welcome to edit desert and improve it, although it's already good. You might find it easier to improve a poorer article on a related topic, such as desertification, desert greening, or semi-arid climate. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:24, 18 February 2021 review of submission by AlikhanNalini

[edit]


This Wiki page has been created, as fans of this artist were getting confused with another Greg Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Johnson_(white_nationalist)). This other Greg Johnson has a Wiki page, however, he is a self-confessed White Nationalist and therefore the total antithesis of the British Singer Songwriter, Greg Johnson. I have read the criteria and Greg Johnson (Musician), meets the following:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself: https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/9904046.bournemouth-schoolboy-wins-over-festivals-20000-crowd/ & https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10631354.bournemouth-teenager-takes-top-slot-in-talent-show/ & https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10427057.bournemouth-youngsters-set-to-shine-at-teenstar-regional-finals/ & https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10337037.talented-teens-reach-regional-finals-of-talent-contest/

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Greg has been featured on BBC Radio 2 and Wave 105Fm, the South's biggest variety of hits. https://gregjmusic.wixsite.com/website/bio & https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=10151561078806394

AlikhanNalini (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_February_18&oldid=1008584861"