Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 9 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 11 >
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.


August 10

[edit]

04:53, 10 August 2024 review of submission by NEOKALIDAS

[edit]

Why my article is quickly rejected. I am trying to put my copyrighted new theory of entirety on this platform to enhance public awareness and I keep no profit making intent vested in doing so. Please suggest as I am new user.

Thank you.

Kalishwar Das www.kalishwardas.com NEOKALIDAS (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what existing reliable sources have already published on a subject, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:55, 10 August 2024 review of submission by 162.156.70.174

[edit]

How is it contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 162.156.70.174 (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:56, 10 August 2024 review of submission by 162.156.70.174

[edit]

How is it contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 162.156.70.174 (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Grrrr(hug)

[edit]

How can I make it properly give me the true reason why you are rejecting it Grrrr(hug) (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grrrr(hug): this draft has nothing to suggest the subject is even remotely notable, and certainly no evidence of that. Besides, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 10 August 2024 review of submission by 122.52.68.94

[edit]

see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#03:23,_7_August_2024_review_of_submission_by_112.203.134.153 has copyed [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)&action=edit&section=2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)&action=edit&section=4

now has Citation needed the Draft that says This section needs expansion. Fix issues and resubmit

15:15, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Waqar Malik younas

[edit]

this is my all details Waqar Malik younas (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Waqar Malik younas: you don't ask a question, but your draft Draft:Waqar Malik Younas has been deleted as promotional. Also note that you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Bryllig

[edit]

The Stiller-Smith engine is the MultiFAZE mechanism plus the usual parts also found in other engines. These usual parts are not noteworthy, so, what remains is the mechanism, an eccentric gear train that converts reciprocating motion of the pistons to rotary motion of an output shaft. The string of academic papers on the engine are not about the usual parts also found in other engines, they are about the mechanism. This makes the mechanism noteworthy according to the Wiki rules that I have been able to find, so please accept the draft article. Bryllig (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was already answered yesterday at #20:25, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Bryllig. You did not need to post this twice more. C F A 💬 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not answered. Please quote the rule on which the rejection is based, and where to find it. Bryllig (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Hope this helps, C F A 💬 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this requirement is satisfied. Bryllig (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can very confidently say it does not. I have looked through your sources and can't even find a mention of whatever the "MultiFAZE mechanism" is. Googling "MultiFAZE mechanism" literally only returns Wikipedia results and Wikipedia clones. Does it even exist? This is never going to be accepted. C F A 💬 17:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does exist. Inside the Stiller-Smith engine. Both have the same eccentric gear train, the S-S engine using a copy (almost certainly) of the original. Bryllig (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't work that way. You were given a valid reason yesterday and are now pettifogging to try and ignore it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trying to ignore something. Can editors choose not to follow the rules? Bryllig (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig: your account is autoconfirmed, so you can move this into the main article space yourself. Does that answer your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig Let us set the rest of this discussion aside.
I believe this needs a significant rewrite to avoid accusations or WP:OR. That notwithstanding, you have every right, as DoubleGrazing has said, to migrate this to article space yourself. After some thought you should consider the merits of doing so. You obviously feel that you have done all you can within the AFC process, and you should note that this process is not compulsory.
Reviewers try to help editors. Sometimes that is not appreciated, perhaps not understood. That genuinely doesn't matter.
There is a downside to moving to become an article. A reviewer's role is to accept any draft we believe has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. Prior reviewers believe it will fail. If it fails that causes difficulties for any new article on the topic, which must be substantially different for the deleted version or it wil face summary deletion.
My thoughts?
I think it has a 50% chance exactly of passing or failing without a rewrite. With a rewrite I think 51% chance of success. This are my views, those of one editor. You may disagree. If so, please move it to become an article. Please tidy it up if you do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why there may be accusations of WP:OR. One way to get round that would be to rename the article as the Stiller-Smith engine. However, that engine is a copy, plagiarism, and doesn't deserve its own article as much as the original, in my view. Unless, perhaps, it is clearly exposed in the article as a copy. But then some might consider that as not being neutral, pushing a political agenda etc. I need to mull this over. Bryllig (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Stiller-Smith engine seems to be notable based on a quick search. But I genuinely cannot find any source that confirms the existence of the "MultiFAZE mechanism". Do you have one that I might've missed? C F A 💬 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does exist. Inside the Stiller-Smith engine. Both have the same eccentric gear train, the S-S engine using a copy (almost certainly consciously copied) of the original. The same eccentric gear train can be seen in the drawings of the patents for the original and the copy, and in some of the papers on the S-S engine. Bryllig (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it can be seen. It matters if it has been seen by reliable sources to be the same. We're not allowed to make that technical judgment on Wikipedia, which includes you, as us drawing an independent conclusion that they are the same is clear-cut WP:OR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it also take a reliable source to determine whether a reliable source is reliable? A child could see that the mechanisms in the drawings are the same. Are there no experts (mechanical engineers) on Wikipedia? The so-called reliable sources that Wikipedia requires are academic sources and I am not a member of the academic world and so cannot fulfil that requirement. There is a case of plagiarism here and Wikipedia seems bent on preventing that from coming to light. Bryllig (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that sounds good, if I understand it correctly!
Not quite sure what account is autoconfirmed means.
Not quite sure how to move the draft into the main article space, but am sure help can be found. Bryllig (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig Autoconfirmed means you have all the permissions you need to do everything any ordinary editor can do.
Moving is our equivalent of renaming 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig, before doing this, please understand that if you move the draft into the main article space then it can be nominated for deletion. If a consensus develops to delete the now-article, it will be significantly harder to have it stay live the second (third, fourth, etc) time you create it. You might also have to completely rewrite it from scratch, with different sources, since articles deleted following a deletion discussion are not eligible for refund and the sources may have been deemed unreliable.
I'm not saying this in an effort to stop you; if you want to move it into the main space, that's your right. But I know how much time and energy can go into a draft, and if it were me I would want someone to let me know the worst-case scenario and how likely it is. Given that multiple editors have raised concerns about OR and RS, I think it is more likely than not that you would have a deleted article on your hands. Of course I could be very wrong - and if so, I'll be excited to learn about this new topic and end up down another Wiki rabbithole! It just seemed unfair to me to read this thread and not give you a heads-up about the hurdles that may end up in your path. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning. I did have a sneaking suspicion that i was being led up the garden path on a couple of occasions. That is not a good sign.
MultiFAZE may look too much like a trademark (it is just an acronym). Eccentric gear train is a neutral description. Do you think using that instead would help? Bryllig (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig: nobody is trying to lead you up any path, garden or otherwise. We're simply making the point that you have the necessary permission to publish this draft yourself; you just need to be aware that that comes with certain risks. If you feel that the draft is ready for publication, despite experienced reviewers telling you otherwise, then you don't need to waste your energy trying to convince us, you can do as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig If I may remind you, I said "There is a downside to moving to become an article. A reviewer's role is to accept any draft we believe has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. Prior reviewers believe it will fail. If it fails that causes difficulties for any new article on the topic, which must be substantially different for the deleted version or it wil face summary deletion."
I'm pleased this has been re-emphasised by StartGrammarTime, with more detail, and thank them for it.
At AFC Review we are content with whatever you decide. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig, I definitely had no intention of suggesting that either DoubleGrazing or Timtrent were leading you astray, either accidentally or on purpose - it just seemed to me that you deserved a crystal-clear heads-up on possible consequences, since there's so much to try to keep in mind as you work on your draft. I've been watching this help desk for several months now and still forget things while I work on my own draft! StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hope i didn't get you into trouble! I had the sneaking suspicion before your post. Bryllig (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StartGrammarTime All good here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I was just put off by:
your account is autoconfirmed, so you can move this into the main article space yourself. Does that answer your question?
Autoconfirmed means you have all the permissions you need to do everything any ordinary editor can do.
I mistakenly understood the above as: go ahead, what are you waiting for? And when I looked up autoconfirmed I found I had been autoconfirmed for years - so nothing new after all.
Moving is our equivalent of renaming is a bit cryptic, but i haven't got as far as moving yet. Bryllig (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig: you earlier asked "Can editors choose not to follow the rules?" To that, I replied, that you have the permissions needed to publish this article (against advice). I wasn't sure if that's what you meant by "not follow[ing] the rules", hence why I added "Does that answer your question?". Sorry if that wasn't clear. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for "Moving is our equivalent of renaming is a bit cryptic", it just means that when a draft is published, it is technically moved from the draft name space to the main article one, which is effected by renaming the page from Draft:Something to Something. So if you decide to publish this draft, you do so by selecting Tools > Move from the menu. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I seem to remember trying to change the title directly on the page, as can be done with normal text, and it didn't work. I didn't know about the tools. Bryllig (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig With regard to the eventual title of the article, that may change throughout its life, assuming survival. I would concentrate on the text and references, always noting the genuine e skepticism of other reviewer who have cast doubt on its ability to survive as an article.
Your main job now is to verify notability. A supplementary task is to kill any OR and any POV.
Who moves it to mainspace is pretty irrelevant, you or a reviewer are equal in this. The community is the final arbiter of any article's survival. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the title could change to Stiller_Smith after all, as that would be more likely to be found.
The matter of the priority dates of the two patents would be clearly set out - the facts speak for themselves (POV).
The rest would be shortened to the minimum, and the number of sources reduced.
What about the animations - are they OR? If so, I suppose they will have to go. Bryllig (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig If the animations truly illustrate the point being made, they add value to the article. If they come from elsewhere then permissions need to be provided. Since they are on commons, even if you created them, please provide the copyright owner's permission to c:COM:VRT
Reducing references is only laudable of the references are useless. Let me remind you what is needed for a 'thing':
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
As you can see, there is some leeway for citing simple facts. Notability verification has little or no leeway. Always strive for better references, not necessarily more, and not necessarily fewer. If necessary cut unverifiable facts from the text if they are not referencable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the two patents and which was first, I would state in the article that both patents cover the same eccentric gear train. Does that fall within the "leeway for citing simple facts"? Bryllig (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it does. Mine is only one opinion, @Bryllig, others may hod a different view. Seems worth seeing what happens on that one 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Someone who might see their reputation tarnished might have a less charitable opinion. Who makes the final decision? Bryllig (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig Every one of us is only as "good" as our last opinion.
The answer to Who makes the final decision? is that no-one does because there is never a final decision.
Each time a reviewer leaves a review they leave a "current final decision".
When a draft is accepted (a review decision) it may live happily for a long time without edits, or it may be edited at once. That editor makes their final decision
If that decision is to send for WP:AFD that is their (presumed) final decision though they may withdraw their nomination.
Every opinion expressed in a deletions discussion is that editor's final decision, though they may change their mind.
The closer of the discussion makes their final decision based on the policy based arguments during the discussion. They may not exercise a Supervote (if they wish to they shoudkl offer an opinion in the discussion and let another person close the discussion).
The process carries on ad infinitum. I know that answer is not remotely close to the type of answer you were seeking. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is more or less what I thought. That's why I don't want to write a long article. Bryllig (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Alizdirector

[edit]

Dear Sir I have not find any advertising on the article. Could you please advice how to make it perfect? Your kind hand on it will be appreciated Alizdirector (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Alizdirector

[edit]

Could get suport on this Article of Kagoj. Its a tremendous film of Bangladesh that should have an article like others. Your kind support will be highly appreciated and a great contribution in Wikipedia Alizdirector (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected and now deleted. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_10&oldid=1240571748"