Help desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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.

May 26

10:01, 26 May 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:2C1B:5BF1:79FE:B165

2A02:A312:C43C:7680:2C1B:5BF1:79FE:B165 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Aniket Bharti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! This football player has a draft page that was resubmitted month ago after source improvements. As I see there are no rules that could be broken, also here are some local mentions about him in wiki before placing on the football team player page Independiente Santa Fe (source number 3). Could you please share some wiki rules that could help to transfer this draft to the wiki space or answer why it is not possible. Thanks! 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:2C1B:5BF1:79FE:B165 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. There is no deadline. In the meantime please continue to work on it if you believe improvements to be possible. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 26 May 2024 review of submission by Februarymay2003

Februarymay2003 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Nick E. Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need guidance on the reliable source note. Three links are official government pages that the public references.. Februarymay2003 (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Februarymay2003: as I don't know what the reviewer had in mind, I can only answer this indirectly, by saying that I would have declined the draft for lack of evidence of notability, because while the sources probably are reliable, they don't satisfy the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Februarymay2003 I noticed that you resubmitted it. I have

Declined is with a much more specific rationale. Note, please, that you do not present Smith as being in any manner notable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. He is literally listed on the New York City Public Advocate page with a link to a blank page. Check it out. 2603:7000:9B3F:4426:D188:95C7:E931:DEFD (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true. Being a public advocate at city level confers no automatic notability. We would need to see sources which satisfy the WP:GNG standard. Primary sources do not do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Februarymay2003 I have left you a comment on the draft rather than decline it a second time. At the moment you are doing small works and requesting that reviewers do larger work to review your small works. I have explained what you need to be doing. I predict that this will be declined again unless you do the work, sufficient work to show that Smith passes WP:BIO. At present he does not, and may never do so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Februarymay2003 Three experienced reviewers have now left you independent opinions and advice on the minimalistic draft. Thinking further about this I believe you are mistaking that Smith is listed on the New York City Public Advocate page with notability. That listing verifies that he is a post holder, no more and no less. This is a pedantic and real distinction. Many people may be shown to exist, almost none of them have notability, except, of course, to those who love or respect them. As an example, I can show, online, that I exist. I have absolutely no notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Februarymay2003: Government documents and websites are useless for notability in all circumstances, as they are primary sources. (This also includes court documents and anything else produced by a government organ.) https://www.cityandstateny.com/power-lists/2024/03/2024-trailblazers-law/394895/ is borderline as it's a listicle, I can't assess Crain's (walled), and https://abny.org/abny-event/boardroom-breakfast-with-nick-e-smith-first-deputy-public-advocate/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 26 May 2024 review of submission by DerekE9831

DerekE9831 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Trevor David Rhone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! This is my second attempt. I was unable to get anyone to respond when I originally posted this on May 17th. I'd like to ask for an additional set of eyes to take a look at the Draft:Trevor David Rhone. I think Rhone's research on 2 dimensional magnetic materials has had a significant impact in his field, and he also received recognition from the American Institute of Physics and the National Society of Black Physicists. I think he satisfies notability, but any additional feedback is appreciated.

Thank you. DerekE9831 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DerekE9831: can you be more specific and tell us exactly which criterion/-a of WP:NACADEMIC you feel Rhone satisfies, and what evidence supports that? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the reply. I believe Rhone's work satisfies the first and second criteria to meet notability as an academic. I think this is evidenced by his work in 2D magnetic materials, which earned him the Joseph A. Johnson Award from the American Institute of Physics and the National Society of Black Physicists. The same work also earned him a Career Award from the National Science Foundation, which is the most prestigious award given by that organization. His work was also recognized by Nature magazine as one of the top 100 most downloaded articles of 2020. I have citations for all of this information in the article.

I thank you again for taking the time to look at this for me. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve the article, I would appreciate that as well. DerekE9831 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks @DerekE9831. I'm not familiar with those awards, but FWIW it sounds like this person isn't just a rank-and-file scientist, and I'd probably be inclined to accept the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thank @DoubleGrazing. What step should I take next? It was already reverted to a draft once when I attempted to put the article live, and then was rejected when I sent it through the review process, both times by the same user. Should I just go ahead and resubmit it again? There weren't many changes between the first and second attempts, so I can see why it was rejected the second time, but I was able to find and add more sources this time around. DerekE9831 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]