Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 253: Line 253:
:::::I would add that my opinion is my own, feel free to wait to hear from others. I think I'm correct, but maybe not. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::I would add that my opinion is my own, feel free to wait to hear from others. I think I'm correct, but maybe not. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::thanks @[[User:331dot|331dot]] that's really useful. I'll see if I can find some articles with rationale for selecting the product / comparison with other products [[User:Pluke|Pluke]] ([[User talk:Pluke|talk]]) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::thanks @[[User:331dot|331dot]] that's really useful. I'll see if I can find some articles with rationale for selecting the product / comparison with other products [[User:Pluke|Pluke]] ([[User talk:Pluke|talk]]) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:331dot|331dot]] it's probably me being dense here, but would you be able to give an example of a suitable reference for a smallish software product? Obviously firefox, Linux etc will have lots of books and news articles about them, but I'm struggling to think what would be suitable for a product like alicevision (if indeed anything would be suitable?!) [[User:Pluke|Pluke]] ([[User talk:Pluke|talk]]) 22:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


== 14:33:22, 24 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared ==
== 14:33:22, 24 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared ==

Revision as of 22:12, 26 January 2023

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


January 20

01:47:22, 20 January 2023 review of submission by 98.97.34.148

You did not look into the draft. 98.97.34.148 (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsourced track listing for a clearly non-notable album, and it has been rightfully rejected. --Kinu t/c 02:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:09, 20 January 2023 review of draft by 86.185.82.189


86.185.82.189 (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

I attached the wrong link to one of my references and my page for James Begbie was rejected due to a lack of credible sources. I have since altered the citations for your review.

The editor that rejected the page confirms in his bio that he looks for 3 credible sources and I believe this page now contains them:

Reference 1: Is taken directly from the archives of the Uruguayan Football Association and is published on their website - this proves that Begbie played and scored in the match on 17/04/1974. This could be verified by the Uruguayan FA in Montevideo.

Reference 2: Is taken from the Scottish Junior FA website and proves that James Begbie played in the match 1971-1972 final at Hampden Park, Glasgow, in front of 14,000 fans.

Reference 3: Is a story taken from the The South China Morning Post and there is a picture further down in the article that shows and labels James (Jim) Begbie with the Hong Kong FA Cup in 1975. This proves that Begbie won the domestic cup in Hong Kong and the reporter from the South China Morning Post (Nazvi Careem) can verify this.

Please let me know if this sufficient or if further work is required.

14:11:49, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TigerBeats


Hello. I don't understand why this article has been rejected after such a long wait. I added sources to six books, which is rather a lot more than your average article, and I have references to multiple well established newspapers and periodicals in the entertainment space. Of these, most are in-depth, all are reliable, all are independent of the subject, and all are secondary unless Wikipedia has invented a new definition of the term. There are links to two primary texts -- actual artistic works, which is not forbidden, as far as I know. Aside from an IMDb link and Mubis link, there are just two links to blog posts by well-known genre bloggers. Is that why this has been rejected? Can I delete those, wait another three months, and... see results?

TigerBeats (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You have done well to document appearances of the character; however, there is little coverage as to why the character is important or significant according to independent sources. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:06, 20 January 2023 review of draft by Mhijazi

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi admin, I have worked on my draft again. Please check if it's acceptable now.Mhijazi (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhijazi (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:37, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TonyTheTiger


I was not aware that a submission decision was pending when it was evaluated. I had not actively submitted the article. That being said, I thought the article already had sufficient sources to document WP:N. Many of the articles that are focussed on my sister as a subject have been deemed as not sufficiently independent of the source. I had been given the indication that other editors supported its notability at WP:COI. I don't think much else is out there right now. If this is WP:TOOSOON, I'll check back later, but I had thought I should continue refining it before I even attempted to submit it. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved IP, submitted my incomplete draft prematurely (while it still had the {{underconstruction}}) tag on it, resulting in a decline. Is it possible to roll back the clock on this submission?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

02:01:26, 21 January 2023 review of submission by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES

I am completely confused by your notes. You are saying that the draft reads like an Advertisement, not an Encyclopedia but to me it is the exact opposite. There is only factual substance and no "fluff". It is also completely neutral just facts. All the sources were independent, published reliable and in depth. A holding company purchasing subsidiaries are not routine business announcements. It shows the companies business structure and what they do. The article also lists the key people, its address, and Nasdaq information. I'm just at a loss. SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES, your sources are press releases. Not a single source is independently written. Press releases do not establish notability. Routine business transactions such as acquisitions, also do not contribute to establishing notability. That may all be factual information, but Wikipedia is not a business directory. WP:NCORP lays out Wikipedia's definition of notability for Corporations and will be of help as to sourcing. As to advertising, it's not a blatant we sell this, buy here (which would be ground for deletion, rather than a declination). What I meant there is that it's using the companies words and claims via Press releases which are promotional material. Slywriter (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources ,2 ,4 ,5 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13 Are not press releases from the company and they are independent. Some additional information is from press releases and some other information comes from company auditor information and they have a duty to be independent. You would be surprised at how many companies which are already on Wikipedia get media article coverage because they pay for advertising or they pay the authors/editors. I also put most of the information into my own words and did not copy it from what I cited from. It is sad because the company is noteworthy for many reasons. First company to mass produce a solid state battery. First company to put it into a commercial product. They hold many patents. RCA Commercial is a portion of the legacy brand company. Vayu Aerospace drones are used to protect our countries nuclear missles. The difficulty I have inputting real information into Wikipedia makes me think maybe Wikipedia isn't a good source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES No, Wikipedia isn't "a good source of information", see Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the general disclaimer. Wikipedia can be vandalized; Wikipedia can have incorrect information either inadvertently or deliberately; there are many reasons Wikipedia should not be trusted. No one should trust Wikipedia blindly; they should examine the sources provided to determine their validity and accuracy.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and what it does. If this company was the first to produce a solid state battery, we need independent reliable sources that discuss that fact- paid for stories and press releases are not independent. See other stuff exists; it is possible for inappropriate content and sources to get by us, we can only address what we know about. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we can and do miss things, this does not mean other inappropriate content should be allowed. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the sources you mention in the current version:
  • 2 is a market data summary at the news agency Reuters
  • 4 is a press release (a minimally rewritten version of this, see churnalism)
  • 5 is a press release
  • 9 is from seekingalpha.com, which is categorised as "generally unreliable" – and it is a press release, original version here
  • 10 is about an unrelated topic, and Alpine 4 Holdings is not mentioned
  • 11 is another press release regurgitated by seekingalpha
  • 12 is another version of the PR in source 11
  • 13 is a press release
So there you have it.--bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all true then you can say the same about this company and it should be taken down QuantumScape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES: If you re-read the response you got from 331dot above, you'll find that this exact point was addressed there. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES I will restate what I said; See other stuff exists; it is possible for inappropriate content and sources to get by us, we can only address what we know about. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we can and do miss things, this does not mean other inappropriate content should be allowed.
We are only as good as our volunteers and the time they have to spend locating and addressing inappropriate information. If you would like to help out in identifying inappropriate articles for possible action, please do, we need the help. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked QuantumScape as being problematic and needing attention, thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:58, 21 January 2023 review of submission by Franklinerobe


Franklinerobe (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklinerobe: You do not ask a question, but Draft:Syed Fardeen has been rejected which means that it will not be considered further. Previously, it had been declined five times in less than 24 hours, and you had not even attempted to fix the issues described by the reviewers. --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:21, 21 January 2023 review of submission by 39.32.196.195


39.32.196.195 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:19, 21 January 2023 review of submission by User345627

I would like to upload this article because I really look up to Chloé Prinsloo and she has impacted my life for the better, so I thought it would be great to upload an article on Wikipedia about her.

User345627 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User345627 Wikipedia has guidelines and requirements on notability for the creation of articles for people - you can view these guidelines here for more information. Meszzy2 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User345627 If you just want to tell the world about this person, that's precisely what social media is for. There are also other wiki-type projects with less stringent requirements. Wikipedia article summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person- and you offer none in this draft. That's why it was rejected and will not be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

11:31:00, 22 January 2023 review of submission by Ерден Карсыбеков

I created an article with one ref, and 10 days later I added three more refs; but the draft had not been accepted. So why? Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC) I've corrected the link Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC) @TheChunky could you please answer me? --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:35, 22 January 2023 review of draft by Ed.eroticdevices


HI I SUBMITTED AN ARTICLE FOR OUR BAND EROTIC DEVICES AND WAS REJECTED. IT HAS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BAND, BAND MEMBERS, DISCOGRAPHY AND A LINK TO DISCOGS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT I DID WRONG THANKS!


Ed.eroticdevices (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to add reliable sources to your article. Additionally, you should avoid writing about yourself or your band. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed.eroticdevices TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you well I did changed it and re-submitted. The article is a plane description of the band ...few lines. 2 lines description, band name, band memebers, discography with references, a external link to discogs and that's it. I followed a template from other bands. Ed.eroticdevices (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:21:04, 22 January 2023 review of draft by Tornadotom666


Hi, I'm interested in the history of buildings at the the University of Maryland but I'm not sure where exactly the line is on notability. I'm aware of List_of_University_of_Maryland,_College_Park_Campus_Buildings, but I don't know which buildings or Communities (groups of residence halls) could merit their own articles. Or maybe there should be a page that lists University of Maryland residence halls, like has been done with the University of Pennsylvania College Houses. Does anyone have advice on this?

Some of the more significant coverage on residence halls is for older ones - https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=14610 - or more recently built ones - https://yaledailynews.com/sjp/2022/08/24/university-of-maryland-dedicates-newest-residential-hall-in-honor-of-its-first-african-american-students/. But again I'm not sure how much is enough. I want to research and contribute information about these buildings but I don't know where is the best place to put it.

Tornadotom666 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

10:33:26, 23 January 2023 review of submission by "ankitkumarofficial"


"ankitkumarofficial" (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:37, 23 January 2023 review of draft by BethanyGraceAB


Hi, I am trying to work out how my draft got the comment that all articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I am confused because none of the references and citations have been produced by Cytiva. All of them are independent of the subject. Can you help clarify please?

BethanyGraceAB (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BethanyGraceAB If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to document the existence of a company and tell what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The key here is "significant coverage"; coverage that goes beyond just telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the company, not what it sees as significant about itself. Your sources are almost exclusively announcements of the activities of the company, which does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BethanyGraceAB: There are a couple of things here. First, Cytiva is a company that in one sense has a fairly long history, in the form of older companies that have been merged and/or bought and changed their names and so on. Several of those companies are clearly notable, and there are articles about Pharmacia and GE HealthCare and Amersham plc, and even about Pharmacia & Upjohn – and a considerable part of Draft:Cytiva is about the history of those companies. I don't see the relevance of any of the acquisitions and mergers listed in the History section up until the Danaher Corporation sub-section. Secondly, you say that All of [the references] are independent of the subject – I'm afraid that is not correct, though. Sources 1 and 2 are two copies of the same press release, slightly rephrased. That it is a press release would have been evident even if there had only been one copy. Source 3 is an interview with a Cytiva manager. Source 4 is another press release. 5 is a listing in a business directory, clearly written by the company itself. So it's definitely not the case that all sources are independent.
So the first thing to do is cut away a lot of the content that isn't really about Cytiva, and finding actually independent sources (I found this and maybe one or two others but it does seem to be a bit hard) – if such sources can't be found to show that WP:CORPDEPTH is met, it would be better to add a section to GE HealthCare or Danaher Corporation about the current name. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Rockoutto

Hello, previously the article was not posted because "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Since then PHELIXX LAKE has been added to playlists consisting of 666K Likes curated officially by Spotify as well as released music through the Ghost Killer Entertainment youtube channel consisting of 260K subscribers. Please reconsider to include the topic/band. Rockoutto (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoutto Being on large number of playlists or a large number of social media followers is not one of the notability criteria for bands. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Mayukhsenkar

Hello all, I got the following message on the review of the submission. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

It seems I have referenced sources adequately and all sources are vetted and reliable. Including sources from reputed national dailies. Please let me know what changes to do, to get the write up published successfully.

Could someone please help and explain the reason behind decline in a little more detail?

Thank You very very much

Mayukhsenkar (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:26, 23 January 2023 review of submission by El Indio Deportivo


El Indio Deportivo (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:44, 23 January 2023 review of submission by JDHumphreys


JDHumphreys (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my article on a feminist writer and thought-leader keeps being rejected. First for a bad citation I made (to Daily Mail), which I corrected. Then for notability (so I added additional references, and a reminder that women working collectively like this person does are often only acknowledged peripherally). Then on chat for being "a subject that is quite volatile right now" (meaning feminism). My concerns are that it is being rejected because it is not a subject of nuanced interest to the Wiki editors. It is, however, of great interest to the larger, decades-long topic of women in society -- people like this subject (whom I have read about for many years) need to be acknowledged for their role in moving this important global conversation (that affects the lives of half the planet's population) forward over decades. Would love some expert advice on how to improve the article and have it approved. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joanne_Sandler

20:32:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Brava55

The page was rejected by Mattdaviesfsic because it was written by someone with the same surname as the person in question: Naief Yehya. Is this a rule that disqualifies a submission? Are there any doubts about the veracity of the information? It also says that "a lot being unsourced". Could the reviewer be more specific? Thank you in advance.Brava55 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Brava55 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brava55 Please communicate with the reviewer directly on their user talk page to ask them specific questions. It is not forbidden to write an autobiographical article, but it is highly discouraged. (see WP:AUTO) People writing about themselves must set aside everything that they know about themselves and all materials they put out and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about them. That's usually very hard for people to do about themselves. Most attempts at autobiographies in my experience fail because the person wants to post their resume or list their accomplishments, not write an encyclopedia article. While I do not speak for the reviewer, perhaps they felt the prospect of the draft being written as an encyclopedia article was low. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brava55 If this draft is not written by its subject, please make sure the reviewer knows that, when you contact them. David10244 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your response. The article was not written by the subject. I'll contact the reviewer. Brava55 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:32, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Charles pines

i would like to have this article published as this will gratly help the mental health of the peolple Charles pines (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to help people's mental health on another website. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:30:57, 23 January 2023 review of submission by El Indio Deportivo


This is a podcast of wrestling, the data is on facebook, instagram and youtube, that have the videos of interviews with wrestlers, analysis of wrestketling show. All are jornalist. That make a tremendods work. is something serious. The fans what to know more about us, and youtube and instagram has the evidence of that with a good base of fans.

El Indio Deportivo (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

05:18:57, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Arun Yesubalan


Arun Yesubalan (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00:02, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m


Request you to please help me in getting this article be published in Wikipedia as this is a notable article worthy to get publish in Wikipedia.

Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mallikarjunaswamy.m: did you see the replies you got to your earlier questions about the same draft, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for_creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 16#13:20:22, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#12:48:06, 19 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m? --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:17, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Patience Diez


Hello,

It is my first article on Wikipedia. I am learning, can you please help me?

The article I drafted has been rejected.

But all the sources cited in footnote are independent of the subject: they are press articles, peer reviewed publications and websites of institutions. What shall I do more?

About the comment of the reviewer: "Not clear what really makes him notable. An advisor and chair for lots of things, it seems - but what has he done to get there? What's he known for?"

He is a respected and well known curator. I thought the article was explicit about what Gregory Castera has done to get there and what he is known for: - He has curated many international exhibitions and events in major institutions – He has published books and catalogues with internationally renown publishers - He has been director of institutions

Again, can you help me to improve this article?

All the best Patience

Patience Diez (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Diez Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in this context, it means that it could not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
The vast majority of your sources seem to just document the existence of his work or specific things he did. What we need in terms of passing this process are sources with significant coverage of him that discuss his significance or influence as the source sees it. For example, the last sentence in the "life and career" section says that "Guest Professor of collective practices at the Royal Institute of Art Stockholm". How does that make him a notable figure? Did he influence the Institute to adopt a certain policy? Did he make any groundbreaking research there? Did students write about his influence on them? (these are rhetorical questions) Things like that. Wikipedia is not a place to just document an individual's body of work. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:03, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Pluke

Hi,

I'm writing to request that Alicevision undergoes another review. I believe it now meets the criteria to be accepted onto wikipedia and the recent review lacks rationale.

The latest review of this page led to a claim that "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with no reasoning for this given. This contrasts with months of editing and review that gave constructive feedback, with previous reviewers being positive about the page, i.e. here

> That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. Gusfriend

Feedback has been acted upon and the reasoning behind choices of literature to support the page made clear.

I have been trying to communicate with @Tagishsimon, who came to final decision, for nearly two weeks now, but have had no response to my posts on their talk page, or my direct email, even though they appear to be actively editing wikipedia they haven't been able to respond to my requests.

I'm willing to take on further feedback if there is any, but also strongly think that this page should be promoted, for the reasoning in the links above.

Pluke (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest(and maybe others will disagree) I'm not seeing a reason to disagree with the rejection. The draft only documents the existence of the software and tells what it does, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the software, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable product. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, many of the sources used to support the article are from peer-reviewed journal articles, i.e. they are reliable secondary sources. The mention of alicevision in these articles is core to the articles, i.e. the software is not mentioned in passing. My recent editing has been checking this. If the crux of this decision is around notability of sources, could I please ask that you help point out why the current selection of sources aren't reliable? I can then work on trimming or replacing them with better sources. This is my first attempt to add a new article in about 5-10 years, so I might be a bit behind on the criteria that wikipedia uses. Many thanks. Pluke (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pluke I'm not necessarily questioning the provenance of the sources, but their content. Not everything a reliable source publishes is appropriate for establishing notability. In reading the draft it appears to me to say "This is a software, and this is what it does". I'm not seeing what is significant or influential about it. If these journals discuss that as they see it(not as the makers of the software see it) that's not clear to me from reading the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot this is what I've been working on, reading the articles and dropping those that mentioned the alicevision in passing e.g. "examples of photogrammetry software include meshroom". The articles provided are different and use the software as a core component of their research, without the software the research they conducted would not have taken place. This is indirect support, "I used pluke's cough medicine" rather than "pluke makes high quality cough medicine". Is this enough? Though your comment: "If these journals discuss that as they see it(not as the makers only the software see it)" makes me think that maybe my edits were wrong, as I removed articles that were doing exactly that, and listing meshroom as an example of photogrammetry software for a range of different fields.
Additionally, the support in literature of this tool seems much stronger than many of the software currently listed on Comparison_of_photogrammetry_software, e.g.
- 3DF Zephyr - only mentions that it is cited on google scholar
- Ames Stereo Pipeline - only two papers listed
- IMAGINE Photogrammetry - four papers listed
- OpenDroneMap - four papers listed
- PhotoModeler - 12 papers listed
Any suggestions gratefully received Pluke (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pluke We don't need the whole url; I've made your links internal links. Please see other stuff exists. It's likely that there are many articles on Wikipedia that do not meet current guidelines; this is not a reason to add more. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it is generally not mandatory(except for new accounts, IP users, and those with a COI); there are many ways inappropriate articles can exist.
Notability is not inherited by association. The mere act of researchers using your company's product does not make it notable. If there is something unique about this software that caused it to be selected by researchers, we need independent reliable sources to state that(which would mean it couldn't be your company or the researchers themselves, but others discussing why the product was chosen and how it influenced research). 331dot (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that my opinion is my own, feel free to wait to hear from others. I think I'm correct, but maybe not. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @331dot that's really useful. I'll see if I can find some articles with rationale for selecting the product / comparison with other products Pluke (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot it's probably me being dense here, but would you be able to give an example of a suitable reference for a smallish software product? Obviously firefox, Linux etc will have lots of books and news articles about them, but I'm struggling to think what would be suitable for a product like alicevision (if indeed anything would be suitable?!) Pluke (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:22, 24 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared


Hello, I need to update most of these articles relating to seven HBO series that are involved in controversies since 2011, which are copied into this article, and include it's criticism. CastJared (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:46, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Adamsade22


I need help understanding why my draft was denied for publishing. I changed the language but need to know if the problem is with my sources? Adamsade22 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adamsade22 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adamsade22 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a poorly sourced personal CV. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:29, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Rwlove51


Rwlove51 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC) I have submitted a new article with references for consideration on a proposal that has been published by a prestigious law review and specifically mentioned in a US Congressional hearing and the "editors" are telling me it is "notable" enough for WP. Are they correct?[reply]

Rwlove51 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... telling me it is NOT notable enough ... sorry. Rwlove51 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its "The People's Ledger" a few lines above this ... still trying to understand navigation on your site Rwlove51 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rwlove51 You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this proposal. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must beg to differ ... publication in the Vanderbilt Law Review is both reliable and notable.
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone actually reading the references? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone actually reading the references? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rwlove51 Yes, I did, it was written by the originator of the proposal, meaning it is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP editors have failed to read their own documentation ...??? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you may not wish to reverse your own decision ... so why not simply ask somebody else to look at this thread of comments ... AFTER they read the WP guidelines for what is considered "reliable". :-) Rwlove51 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy to change my mind, but I don't see a reason to, nor did four other reviewers. You are free to roll the dice and place it in the encyclopedia yourself, this process is voluntary if you have no connection to the topic. If it is deleted according to a deletion discussion, though, it would be harder to recreate later. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the law review which is independent of the author in cse you do not understand how that works ... your own definition of "reliable" says "published ... by well-regarded academic press." Rwlove51 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's true, that's only one source, and it would only allow you to write "This proposal was published by the Vanderbilt Law Review". We need at least three sources with significant coverage, that go into detail about why the subject is important or significant as the source sees it. The mere act of publishing the proposal does not tell us what Vanderbilt finds to be significant about it. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you following the guidelines or making them on your own? Please give me the link that suppoprts your position and I will review it carefully. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I do think this needs an appeal to somebody "neutral" which is also a WP principle. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I'm not neutral, but this will remain open for others to comment. However, you might want to consider the greater experience of not necessarily me but the four reviewers who feel the same way.
You created your account in 2015, but except for two deleted edits immediately didn't have a single edit until a year ago about this topic. Do you have a connection to it? 331dot (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection ... however it is a frequent topic in the circles I am in ... and I was amazed that it was NOT covered by WP so that I did not hqve to explain it to everyone. The other "evidence" you listed is not relevant to this matter ... and I am sure you must realize that. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were significant chnges as I progressed thru the other editors ... indeed that is the very purpose of editing ... we are down to a single issue ... and that is the one you and I are discussing ... does the Vanderbilt Law Review establish this subject as "notable" and the source as "reliable". Let's try to stay on point. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for the link that sets out the specific criteria you claim is required ... I gave you my link to WP's own policy statement ... please be so kind as to do the same for me. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have put yourself in the position of asserting that Vanderbilt Law Review is not a "well-regarded academic press" that has "vetted" the work ... do you really want to take that position? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've said nothing of the sort. I've said that the mere act of publishing her proposal does not tell us what they found to be significant about it. If vetting found it significant, we need to know how in order to say anything more than "they published it". Even if this wasn't an issue, that's still only one source. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a sixth reviewer telling you that it does not meet Wikipedia policies will help. Unless others are independently talking about the subject, it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. As for the initial paper, it doesn't matter how reputable the publisher is, the paper is still a primary source by the creator of the subject and so can not be used to satisfy notability. If others have cited and discussed the paper, those would be useable secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwlove51: the problem was never the reliability of the Vanderbilt Law Review. The key here is independent; a published paper cannot be independent of its author, even if it is published in a peer reviewed journal with a very high impact factor. In addition, it is a primary source, and Wikipedia articles require secondary sources; please have a look at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. To show that the concept is notable, the draft has to cite independent, secondary sources. A primary, non-independent, reliable source can be used to verify specific facts (e.g. when a paper was published), but not to show notability. Note also that substantial parts of the draft are not supported by the sources provided. The purpose of a source in a Wikipedia article is to verify the information, not to provide further reading on a related topic. As an example, the claim (from the draft) Opponents see a people's ledger as an expansion of the current role and powers of central banks which should be judged as failed policy and decentralized. They claim a people's ledger would continue the process, begun with the Nixon Shock and accelerated with quantitative easing, of transforming the common currency from an impartial, apolitical social medium of exchange decentralizing economic and political power is not in fact supported by the citation that follows, this essay from 1958 by Ludwig von Mises.
Can I also ask you to improve the citations in the draft? As in an academic paper, the list of references in a Wikipedia article is supposed to include bibliographic information to make it possible for the reader to understand what the source is, without having to follow a link to some other website. A bare URL is not an acceptable citation, and while the VLR paper is easy enough to verify, the other paper (currently source 1, a bare URL linking to a pdf hosted at lpeproject.org) is unidentifiable even if you follow the link. It is clearly a draft version of a paper, but there's no bibliographic info about where the paper was to be published; a pre-publication version of an academic paper is usually not a useful source, and when we don't even know where the paper is from, it becomes even less so. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that the Mises reference does not support my summary of the opponents position is YOUR OPINION. Although Mises does not reference The People's Ledger because he died long before it was written, he was a well known monetary authority who wrote extensively on the dangers of centralized finance which is what this is. His address referenced goes into the issue here in Part VI. You are putting WP editors in the position of judge of the relevance of references and that is about the same as other "media editing". Let the reader decide if it is relevant. It is NOT your position to judge.
I will continue my work ... because WP is worth the effort ... and I do appreciate volunteers ... I am one as well. But if WP continues to sanction this kind of quibbling about major works that are referenced in Congressional hearings and major Law Reviews, I can only conclude that WP has become an arbitrary at best and compromised at worst media ... and cease my participation. Sad. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the Mises reference should be used to expand on the Monetary authority or Central bank articles. It could be used to describe the history leading up to this proposal, but not to contribute to the notability of the proposal. As for "let the reader decide if it is relevant"; that misunderstands what Wikipedia is. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information and ideas. This is a curated encyclopedia that operates by consensus of its participants. If you disagree with that curation and are unable to persuade others you are correct, you are free to go out, purchase servers and internet access, and start your own global website with whatever criteria(or no criteria) you wish for inclusion. Now seven people have told you that you are in error- how many will it take to convince you that, maybe you are in error and the problem isn't us? As I said above, you are free to roll the dice and place it in the encyclopedia yourself- but this discussion is a strong indicator that such a thing would not end well for you, and it would be harder to recreate this later if deleted by a discussion. I urge you to hear what we are saying and maybe consider that we might be correct and that this topic does not yet merit an article. That doesn't mean it will never have one, just that it doesn't merit one right now. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are telling me how to write the article ... I would never have suspected this. Your own system permits virtually any person to edit any article in anyway they wish ... "indiscriminate" is probably too weak a word to describe that policy.
But when it comes to new subjects, the editors form an ad hoc committee to control content.
You must see the inconsistencies and incoherence in this. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to your insulting comment of "purchasing servers", who purchases yours? People like me in case you did not know. There is a saying in "sales" which WP editors should learn: "The customer is not always right, but he is NEVER wrong."
Your statement that WP is a "consensus" is totally misguided. It is NOT a consensus of what is reliable or notable ... there are rules for that. My article presented BOTH sides of the controversy.
And your conclusion that this topic does not merit an article is simply YOUR OPINION [all 7 of you] ... and unsupported by your own guidelines. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I was insulting there, I was quite serious. If you disagree with how we operate, you should go out and start your own website. And no, it is not true that "virtually any person" may "edit any article in anyway they wish". if that's what you think, then you fundamentally misunderstand what we do here. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. And when a subject makes it into a US Congressional Hearing ... well that simply CRUSHES all your arguments about lack of notability. You have dug into the wrong defense ... and it would be best for you to learn something from this as well ... for the sake of WP which we ALL value. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment again reflects a total misunderstanding of what we do here and of notability. Something being discussed in a Congressional hearing is not a ticket to a Wikipedia article- if independent reliable sources report on the discussion of a topic in a Congressional hearing and discuss why that makes the topic important, then we can get somewhere. You seem to think that there mere act of a notable Law Review publishing someone's proposed idea merits that a Wikipedia article- this misunderstands notability and sources. We're now approaching WP:IDHT territory since you are not being told what you want to hear. If you aren't going to listen to us, and think that everyone else is the problem and not you, there is no point to further discussion here. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstand "independent". The law review IS independent and you cannot deny that. The fact that they published is reliable accoding to WP's own definitions and ANYTHING they publish is notable.
Furthermore, I am still waiting for 331dot to show me where WP states the criteria [s]he asserted: "three sources with significant coverage, that go into detail about why the subject is important or significant as the source sees it" ... so please provide the link to where WP states that in their policy for submissions.
As for Slywriter's argument about 6 editors ... that is a bandwagon fallacy which I am surprised to hear from such an august group of logicians. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#bandwagon ... you will do best if you stick to the facts and the written guidelines ... we can all share those which is the purpose of dialogue. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but you seem to have ignored it- Your First Article. There is no hard and fast number of sources required, but most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage of the topic to pass this process. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing your argumentative style is not recommended. WP:CIVILITY is not optional. You have been told what the issue is. Your own belief of Wikipedia policy does not replace the decades of consensus that guides decisions here. Your choices are WP:DROPTHESTICK, provide secondary independent sources for further evaluation or move the article to mainspace yourself where it will almost certainly be subject to a deletion discussion. Slywriter (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:32, 24 January 2023 review of draft by ThatAnalystGuy


I am trying to add a wikipedia page for the school in which I work. 7 out of the 9 schools in our district have a wikipedia webpage and we would love to add to it. I am just not sure what else I am missing. I have added more references, but it still comes back.

ThatAnalystGuy (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ThatAnalystGuy If you work for the school, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
Wikipedia does not have pages for schools, but articles about schools. It's entirely possible that those other 7 articles are inappropriate; in the distant past of Wikipedia, existence was sufficient to merit a school an article, but that is no longer the case. See other stuff exists.
An article about a school must not merely document its existence and tell its accomplishments. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable school. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking or receiving any compensation for the creation of this article of the school. I am using sources outside of the school for information on the school. What do I need to do in order for the article to be published? Thanks!


January 25

00:04:49, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Rlaird


The reviewer stated "Entire sections are unsourced, on Wikipedia all stated facts should be backed up by a citation. External links should be removed from body of article." So, I have questions about both of these stipulations:

1) The IUCRR is and has always been a virtual organization, it's only "existence" is proved by the website that is operated by the org, and by call-outs made via email lists. All discussions between Board of Directors are via private email lists. The same is true for the members, with their own private email list. So, I'm a little bewildered by the problem of sourcing all of the statements in the article. Most of the content of the article comes directly from the IUCRR website, and for the good reason stated above. The organization has a "bible" that contains information, rules and procedures that everyone needs to follow to be a member in good standing, the RRSOM manual. That manual is available to members only (on a password protection section of the website). The other other citations/sources are articles in a large variety of magazines, newspapers, etc. which talk about members of the IUCRR doing body recoveries (and the occasional rescue). I did include a number of those to "prove" that I'm not making any of this up. So, I'm very concerned that this lack of sourcing will prevent the IUCRR article from being published/accepted. I'd appreciate anything you can offer to help me make this not happen.

2) I have no idea what "External links should be removed from the body of the article." means. I've seen a section called "External Links" on many other articles, and I thought I was using them appropriately.


Rlaird (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rlaird Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) the organization,.showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. If no independent sources give this organization significant coverage, then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:47, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Kalapala0


Kalapala0 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:20:27, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Fidzdiaz-iniego₩== 01:20:27, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Fidzdiaz-iniego ==


Fidzdiaz-iniego (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:34, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Kye Harris 20063


Kye Harris 20063 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Kye Harris (CHECK$) and I would like to upload my wiki about my self because I make a strong impact into the uk music scene and I have a positive message to spread to other younger people, I have done many impressive things to help and I would love to have my page so I can reach out to my fans and have everything in one place. My manager said he would recommend I crate one so all the information is in one place, ive been making a impact on the global radio scene and I've gotten some good impressions.

Thanks, kye.

Kye Harris 20063 People do not have a "wiki" here, a wiki is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is one example; Wikipedia has articles about topics. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; please read the autobiography policy. Wanting to spread messages or communicate with your fans is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia, even for a good cause. If you ever meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources and choose to write about you on their own. Any article about you would not be yours to control; you could not lock it to the text you prefer or prevent others from editing it. Any information, good or bad, about you can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. Please read about an article about you is not necessarily a good thing. If you want to communicate with your fans, you should use social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:50, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Aartibhardwaj12


Aartibhardwaj12 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17:53, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Maplestrip

I have foolishly agreed to write a Wikipedia article for the company I work for, but it has been denied due to sourcing issues. I have a hard time telling which sources are or aren't WP:RS in this subject matter, and my draft includes a variety of sources. Could I get a second opinion on which sources are good and how close this subject is to meeting GNG? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:37, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Hooton Writer

Because my page was deleted and I don't understand what went wrong because I had cited all information and included all relevant links. Pasting it again so please review. Hooton Writer (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{Removed Pasted article contents} Speak with the deleting admin on their talkpage, don't paste the content here, especially copyrighted material.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:29:01, 25 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Två Granit


Hello.

Draft:Oskar Källner was not accepted and I need help to understand why. This is a writer who got a ten book deal with the biggest publisher of childrens literature in Sweden and where the translation rights were sold to other languages before it was even published. This is not the norm. The only information is that it needs sources which are "in-depth", "reliable", "secondary" and "independent". All the articles are about him. They are not "just passing mentions about the subject". The sources are a big regional newspaper, the Swedish public tv corporation and the Swedish public radio corpopration ("the Swedish BBC"). They are reliable, secondary and independent. What is missing?


Två Granit (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Två Granit The sources seem to be basic announcements about his work; not significant coverage of him. One source is an interview with him, which is not an independent source. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author or more broadly a notable person. Book deals and selling translation rights are routine activities, unless you have sources that go in depth discussing how these things are significant. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:04, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Dmg37


I resubmitted the draft after initial rejection as the sources were judged not independent and/or from reputed sources. I have added a long list of sources, so the article is now extensively referenced with reference to major newspapers and academic journals as requested, so am puzzled as to why it has been rejected a second time. Any help would be appreciated!

Dmg37 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmg37 You are what we call ref bombing. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. You have documented the work of the company, but that is not what we are looking for. Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Merely documenting the work of the company is not significant coverage- we are looking for sources that go into detail about what is important, significant, or influentual about the company as the source sees it. Please read Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment). 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I am not very experienced with wikipedia editing so advice is appreciated. Is it possible for you to tell me which particularly sources have been deemed to be not reliable and significant and which are? What are the criteria for notability for poetry presses and work with a smaller audience? Dmg37 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dmg37 There is not a specific criteria for poetry presses, this would fall under the criteria for a notable organization at WP:ORG. It's not your sources themselves that are the issue, but their content- it isn't enough to just document the work of the press. We need independent reliable sources that on their own(not prompted by the press or based on materials from them like press releases) write about the press and what is significant about it. Has the press create a new publishing innovation that other presses emulated? Does it influence how authors write? Something beyond "they are a press and here's what they've published". What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sources which I hope answer these criteria. These are listed with citations on the page, but I include the full quotations here.
As examples of the press putting back into print/circulation, preserving and documenting historical documents of significance to the history of New Narrative writing, African American poetry, etc.
--"The 'open letter' found publication in full some twenty years later, in a British magazine with a strong interest in New Narrative, Materials no.4: Economic Ophelia (2014), edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Writers who love too much : new narrative writing 1977-1997. Dodie Bellamy, Kevin Killian. New York. 2017. ISBN 978-1-937658-65-6. OCLC 992469341., p.501]
--'"We can't end 2020 without a note about a November publication by the under-recognized New Narrative writer Gabrielle Daniels, whose work "spans essays, fiction, poetry and novels," as publisher David Grundy notes, and appeared in the groundbreaking anthology, This Bridge Called My Back." ['Materials Brings Out Long-Awaited First Collection From New Narrative Writer Gabrielle Daniels', The Poetry Foundation,https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet-books/2020/12/materials-brings-out-long-awaited-first-collection-from-new-narrative-writer-gabrielle-daniels]
[Note the significance of publications--This Bridge Called My Back is a major anthology and this was the first collection o Daniels' work.]
--In addition, the press is listed at the National Poetry Library, Southbank Centre, London, and titles are held there and in the British Library, University of Buffalo Special Collections, University College London, etc: https://www.nationalpoetrylibrary.org.uk/write-publish/publishers/materials-materialien [E.g. of catalogue records for UCL and Buffalo: https://worldcat.org/title/1166797897, https://worldcat.org/title/1240805921?oclcNum=1240805921, and https://worldcat.org/title/1237709319]
--The press is include as an important presence in a survey of contemporary UK poetry in Danny Hayward's book Wound Building, both as magazine publisher and publisher of books and chapbooks. "The various groups of authors now published by Commune Editions in the US, or by Materials, Shit Valley, Barque Press, 87 Press, and Veer in the UK, or by a multitude of radical poetry journals such as Tripwire, Materials (again), Splinter, Lana Turner Journal, Armed Cell, or Datableed." [ Hayward, Danny (2021-09-29). Wound Building: Dispatches from the Latest Disasters in UK Poetry. Punctum Books. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-1-68571-000-2.]
--An in-depth (German-language) article (Jul 20, 2016 ) by journalist Philip Boverman for Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, focuses on the press's 'Brexit // Borders Kill' magazine as an example of " how political poetry has become again". "In Germany in particular, mockery of political poetry is still firmly in the saddle. This overlooks the fact that contemporary poetry has unnoticed, via the postmodern back door, so to speak, become political again [...] [the] publication [ ...] is symptomatic of the free English poetry scene, which tends to revolve around the universities, because that's where it still receives some form of encouragement.The magazine compiles reactions to an email circulating at British universities. For these poets, being far away from the well-established cultural industry offers the decisive advantage of being able to react to political developments without advance notice, in a quasi-journalistic manner. but quickly. At readings and poetry festivals they find their audience for a few pounds."https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/brexit-anthologie-ohnmaechtig-1.3086616]
The volume Sundial Compleat, edited by poet, publisher and critic Richard Owens (who has his own Wikipedia page), also reprints the entirety of the issue mentioned by Killian and Bellamy in the above quotation:
--"Additional instances of radical poetic thought contained herein but not first published by Punch Press include facsimile reproductions of Justin Katko’s Basic Middle Finger (Shit Valley 2015) and Economic Ophelia, a themed 2014 issue of the Cambridge-based journal Materials devoted to feminisms and edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Acknowledgments page] Owens goes on to include Materials/Materialien in an "ecumenical bibliography" of US/UK small presses. (pp.414-16) Here is a long quotation from his preface which suggests the importance that presses such as these be documented in sources such as Wikipedia, paying attention to modes of cultural production that may be relatively ephemeral compared to large, funded publishing houses, but perform an important (sub)cultural function nonethelss, making it all the more important that their activity be documented when it is not afforded a place in many standard accounts. "Against the threat of its expiration and potential irrelevance, this bibliography struggles to offer a moderately representative screen capture of what can convincingly be considered a cultural renaissance in politically radical Anglophone poetries, particularly radical lyric poetries [...] as the history of repressive backlashes against leftist political tendencies across the twentieth-century so aptly demonstrates, the term “radical” has long been identified with anti-capitalist and anti-statist cultural practices. And it is precisely these foundationally distinct anti- capitalist cultural tendencies that this bibliography aims to cast in relief [...] More than this, the term “radical” might function as a descriptor of the variegated flood of poetries produced from 911 forward, and even more specifically from the onset of the global economic crisis inaugurated by the US sub-prime mortgage scandal of 2007, and thence onward through global economic collapse of 2008, the Arab Spring of 2011, the UK riots [p. 361] following the police murder of Mark Duggan in 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011-12, the 2014 scandals surrounding sexual violence in US literary communities, and the absolutely decisive emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement following from the routine and seemingly state-sponsored murder of innocent, unarmed African Americans. These developments in their totality have compelled poetic critiques and commentaries which supersede, on the terrain of the aesthetic, the difficulties introduced by partisan and activist poetries in the past [...] The center of such an architecture cannot but fail to hold, and in the most strikingly salient instances—i.e., the work of, say, Amiri Baraka, Gwendolyn Brooks, Charles Olson, J.H. Prynne, and Denise Riley, through to contemporary poets such as Keston Sutherland, Frances Kruk, Sean Bonney, Lisa Robertson, Rob Halpern and innumerable others—what we see is an organic synthesis of the aesthetic and the political predicated on a rigorous and intellectually responsible familiarity with the historicity of Western aesthetic practices across centuries and, in most cases, millennia. As such, these Anglophone poetries mark a decisive turn away from arguments and appraisals grounded in an imagined divide [p. 363] between the political and the aesthetic. But if this is the case, then many if not most of the poets acknowledged in the bibliography below also refuse to approach the poem as a crass political vehicle for punditry, sloganeering and casual opinion. Rather, the poetries here registered offer themselves as active sites of inquiry and investigation unlike any other—as sites that aspire to engage, trouble and further develop the deeper music of our collective being. Many of the poets included below are unashamedly Marxist, communist, socialist, and anarchist, but despite this their work in most instances does not surrender its formal rigor or aesthetic complexity. Actually the case is exactly the inverse; the political commitments of many of the poets here included render their work even more aesthetically difficult and complex than poetries which typically refuse such commitments. In other words, historical developments following from the turn of the last century appear to have triggered a significant reversal of sorts in which those lyric and non-lyric poetries that are most politically committed are also the poetries which are perhaps the most aesthetically innovative and formally rigorous. The organizing unit—or the unit of measure—for this bibliography is the small press; not the commercial press, fine press, vanity press, large independent press or university press but the small press. In almost every case each press is run by one or more poets, most of whom have been published by other presses included here—and the use of the press as an organizing unit convincingly underscores the extent to which the literary communities represented by these presses cross-pollinate one another, each bleeding into each and richly cross-fertilizing many of the others. Situated nearly beyond the cusp of the transition from a predominantly print culture to an almost exclusively digital culture, this bibliography aims to call attention to those presses which have or are most likely to fall into obscurity."
--Perhaps the listed events and appearances at reputed institutions such as Cambridge University, involving major writers who have their own wikipedia pages, also serves as an indication of notability? Dmg37 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large swath of the previous comment is likely copyrighted material, since it's a long, quoted excerpt from a published work -- does that matter here? David10244 (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a comment rather than a published page. I can cut down and repost if better however. Dmg37 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is likely to read the giant wall of text above, I suggest you cut it down to a short paragraph. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:54:47, 25 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.24.168.231


Reviewer says, "Sources used are not reliable and/or not in-depth.".

The sources include;

  • Perry, C. (2016). The Kaleidoscope British Christmas Television Guide 1937-2013. (n.p.): Kaleidoscope Publishing.
  • Billboard, 7 Apr 1956. Vol. 68, No. 14, ISSN 0006-2510. Published by Nielsen Business Media, Inc.
  • Tatarsky, D. (2016). The Splendid Book of the Bicycle. United Kingdom: Portico.

86.24.168.231 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Television Guide is just that – a programme guide. Not in-depth. The Billboard source is her name in an advert. Not in-depth. The Splendid Book of the Bicycle was added to the draft after the reviewer comment above. The two subsequent declines were not specifically about the sourcing; the draft is not a viable one, it can not become an article until some actual content is added to it. It has only one single sentence with almost no information, but cited to 8 separate sources. Resubmitting immediately after a decline without any attempt to edit the draft is not constructive. --bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:46, 25 January 2023 review of draft by JuneKatunge


Hello, I need to know why my request is been declined I have corrected my issues based on the comments given earlier for example: 1. This reads like a resume and needs to be completely rewritten by AngusW🐶🐶F 2. I don't see his name as Principal Secretary State Department for Industry, Principal Secretary State Department for Trade, Cabinet Secretary, or Industrialization Secretary JuneKatunge (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JuneKatunge Basically you have posted his resume. That's not what we are looking for. Any article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you are associated with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

10:02:49, 26 January 2023 review of submission by Asad Ali Jutt


Asad Ali Jutt (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the contents of the draft, as there is a link present just above. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asad Ali Jutt You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a form of social media where people tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:35, 26 January 2023 review of submission by Serro03


This version of the article looks to address the previous comments while taking a minimalist (to-the-point) approach.

It would be highly appreciated to receive your feedback for this new version addressing all the previous issues.

Serro03 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serro03 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:19, 26 January 2023 review of submission by Youplanetec


I have some questions about the review.

First, I don't understand about the added sources being unreliable. Which ones are not reliable? Because most of them are from well known newspapers in Spain, do you mean the ones that are not about Iker Unzu specifically?

Second, the article I have written has not been copied from absolutely no web, on the contrary: Some time ago I wrote the first draft about Unzu and an unidentified user copied and pasted my information in another Wiki (External to Wikipedia: YouTube Wiki) thus stealing my article. I've the article code saved, his copy is badly done and contains errors because he did not copy and paste the article well when creating it in YouTube Wiki.

How can I improve the article/biography and what references should I delete to make it work?

Iker Unzu is a notable figure in Spain and I think he has the necessary articles/sources to be in Wikipedia, so I'll make the necessary changes to improve the article.

If necessary, I'll report the user who created the copied article on YouTube Wiki for copying.

I'd really appreciate your advice on how to improve it.

Youplanetec (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:04, 26 January 2023 review of submission by SeriousLemur


Hello Why my article draft was declined? Could someone do smth with this?

SeriousLemur (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeriousLemur I assume this is about Draft:Lyubov Chernikova. It lacked the submission information; looking at the history, the only time it was declined was when it was blank. You may resubmit it, but it's likely to be declined, because it is highly promotional in nature. The draft needs to be written with a neutral point of view, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about her, not merely documeting her work. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1135794100"