Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 8 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 10 >
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.


November 9

[edit]

08:29:10, 9 November 2021 review of submission by KaizenSukumar1

[edit]


KaizenSukumar1 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KaizenSukumar1 Draft:Sukumar Balakrishnan has been pushed back to you for more work. Please ask the question you wish to ask FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:37:31, 9 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Narendraramnambula

[edit]



Narendraramnambula (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. Theroadislong (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:33, 9 November 2021 review of submission by Jomafa

[edit]


Jomafa (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC) please how do I delete this draft? I want to delete it.[reply]

Jomafa Done, although not necessary as drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:09, 9 November 2021 review of submission by AjoyTripura

[edit]


AjoyTripura (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AjoyTripura You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the [{WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:15, 9 November 2021 review of submission by Uday patel zz

[edit]


Uday patel zz (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uday patel zz You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up your submission which was rejected, but frankly there is nothing there worth working on. Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:35, 9 November 2021 review of submission by WhitecedarNFT

[edit]


Hi there, first time attempting to publish an article here on Wikipedia. Had a question about reliable resources (my article was declined for not sourcing enough!). Where do Medium articles stand as far as reliable resources? Will Medium articles help get the article approved or do they need to come from more legitimate sources?

Thanks for any help!

WhitecedarNFT (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhitecedarNFT: see WP:Reliable sources for what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source and WP:RSP for frequently discussed sources. Medium.com is considered generally unreliable and as such won't help. Given that blockchain has been put under general sanctions, I would be extra cautious. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:46, 9 November 2021 review of submission by Hager Irene

[edit]


User:Nomadicghumakkad has rejected the submission of my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hager_Irene#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Karlheinz_Krauth_%28November_7%29. The reasons he gave are: Significant coverage and secondary sources are missing. Up to my knowledge, I have provided references for all my statements. I even managed to come up with the citation of three obituaries (rev.1, rev.6 and rev.12). So, I really don't know what information is still missing. Please help me to track this down. Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karlheinz_Krauth. Thank you and best regards Hager Irene (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hager Irene: I took a look at the article. Herr Krauth seems impressive, but the article is mostly sourced with his own papers. Wikipedia requires coverage of him by others, to demonstrate notability. One of the few non-paper sources, #20, appears to be a press release. You'll need to identify more coverage of him, perhaps an obituary published in a major paper? TechnoTalk (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Thank you for responding! I found three obituaries (as stated above: rev.1-"Nachruf"-Stuttgarter Zeitung, rev.3-GFA/DWA, a major institution in the field of wastwater treatment in Germany, compareable with IWA-International Water Association in GB and rev.8-"Stuttgart gedenkt". For more coverage of him see rev. rev.5-7. All three articles deal with a laudatio to his 70th, 75th and 80th birthday, published in "Korrespondenz Abwasser", a major journal of die DWA. Would this be sufficient? Thank you for giving me a short reply. With best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hager Irene: Showing his notability would be easier if there was coverage of him in the media. The obituaries you identified and added were posted on the Society for the Promotion of Wastewater Technology's website, an industry association. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Thank you for your help! I have added some new references again. Would you think it sufficent now? Best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hager Irene: Sorry for the delay. I don't have as much time to edit as I'd like, and don't check in very often. The sources you added are either apparently user uploads or information posted on the DWA site, which is a trade group and therefore not an independent source. See WP:PRIMARY. Source #5 is another Wikipedia article, which is frowned upon in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't be used to source itself. You'll need to find more information about him in the media to demonstrate notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TechnoTalk:, thank you again for your help. I have put my question to WP:TEA and now I am waiting for replies. Maybe I can find some further help there. However, I would like to comment on your answer as follows, just for information and explanation as to why I consider Prof. Krauth's vita to be relevant after all: You are right that #5 is another Wikipedia article, but it can be substituted by http://www.wasser-wissen.de/abwasserlexikon/d/dwa.htm. And, I would not - in my opinion - consider DWA as a trade group. It is more likely a nonprofit organization and knowledge hub for the water sector in Germany, comparable to IWA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Water_Association) in England. Please correct me if I am not being right on this point. Thanks again and best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:44, 9 November 2021 review of submission by Yasminto2000

[edit]

I don't understand why the draft have been declined, as the tonality is neutral and all infos cames with external sources (mainly media). It could be great to have advice on which part to improved the article and make it in line with Wikipedia Guidelines Yasminto2000 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yasminto2000: There's not enough coverage of the company to justify a standalone article, yet. #7 also reads like a press release. You could merge with TheFork Australia to see if that gets you over the top. I made some other improvements so it wouldn't read so much like an advertisement. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:28, 9 November 2021 review of draft by Ruston7

[edit]


1. The article is about the Xerox 2700, which is mentioned in Wikipedia, but I find no existing article. I was an engineering manager on the 2700 in 1980-1983. Does this clash with conflict of interest rules? 2. I have a written an MS Word draft with decent formatting and links, but I don't know what I'm doing with Wikipedia's system. I may be able to figure it out in time, but a pointer to the easiest way will help. Thanks, Bruno

Ruston7 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruston7: The printer may be notable, but your draft is written like a brochure, with excessive data. I'd just do a 2-3 sentence lead and a few sentences of history, with a very brief description of the printer, and make sure everything is properly sourced, and try again. If you don't want to learn to format the sources, you can just put the bare url of the online sources in ref brackets like <ref>http://yourlinkhere.com</ref>. There's more info here Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include. TechnoTalk (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:36:54, 9 November 2021 review of submission by Felixflix

[edit]


Hello, the article is relevant. A musician with >200,000 monthly listeners on spotify, not on a hit basis but on continuous releases, not to mention his role in the even more successful band Howling and globally touring Âme. The article was conducted by different authors, showing significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the musician in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. From The New Yorker to pitchfork, XLR8R to Resident Advisor. Thank you for checking and maintaining the needed quality of Wikipedia articles.

Felixflix (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Spotify listeners are not one of the listed notability criteria for musicians, as almost anyone can post music online. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Felixflix I don't know if anyone has explained this during the two years you've been working on the draft, but members of notable bands (or duos) are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. So Pitchfork, XLR8R, and Resident Advisor articles about Wiedermann's role in Âme do nothing to justify a separate article on Wiedermann. Two sentences in The New Yorker about the Schwarzmann trio may not be a passing mention exactly, but it isn't significant coverage either, so doesn't help. The RA review of Dettmann & Wiedemann's collaboration is slightly better, but at under 100 words it's still hard to argue that it's significant coverage. Can you show that one of his projects other than Âme is notable, perhaps Schwarzmann or Howling? If so then Wiedermann would meet criterion #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:06, 9 November 2021 review of submission by Jakeryan101

[edit]


Hello, this article is being written about Jacob Ryan Looper for a reference article for a twitter verification requirement. Can you please explain why this was rejected? Thank you Jakeryan101 (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakeryan101: Despite the fact that your motivation for writing the article conflicts with the purpose of Wikipedia, the reviewing editor felt the article didn't demonstrate that the subject was sufficiently notable. Sorry. TechnoTalk (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the requirement by Twitter even states that they must have a stable article which meets our requirements of WP:BIO[1]. This person does not meet that requirement. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts

21:58:47, 9 November 2021 review of draft by Smerdyakov911

[edit]


Hello, I am working on a draft of an article for a Supreme Court case on the issue of criminal law. I realized midway through writing it that it really isn't all that important, it's more of an extension of an earlier SCOTUS case. It even has a section on that other SCOTUS case's article page. Still, I was going by the rule that all supreme court cases are presumptively notable. I haven't found any law review articles that address this case on point, although there are a dozen or so that mention it in the footnotes. I would appreciate any more experienced eyes on this.


Smerdyakov911 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerdyakov911: Why not ask at WP:SCOTUS? TechnoTalk (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerdyakov911:, I would also suggest reaching out to the three reviewers I mentioned for your article on Gregory v. Ashcroft. They are skilled in that area and more than happy to help. Bkissin (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkissin: How do I reach out? Is there a way to tag or message reviewers? What is the etiquette for that kind of thing? Thanks for your attention in this matter. Smerdyakov911 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerdyakov911:, you can go to their talk pages User talk:BD2412, User talk:Sulfurboy. Or, you can WP:PING them on the draft page (or here on the help desk!). In terms of etiquette, I think thanking them for helping with the Ashcroft case and then asking for help the same way you did here. Bkissin (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkissin: Thanks I will try that.

22:50:48, 9 November 2021 review of submission by David Osmond

[edit]


David Osmond (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being answered at Teahouse. Osmond's Sandbox has been Speedy deletion nominated for obvious cause. David notMD (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_November_9&oldid=1057783994"