Help desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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 15

05:20:14, 15 May 2022 review of submission by 2601:205:C002:D1E0:B89D:D345:D0C3:217F

2601:205:C002:D1E0:B89D:D345:D0C3:217F (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to make a page about "What if 2020 was a person," but it got declined. I added a bunch of references to this article and added more details. I'm not sure what else I can do. I want to know what is 2020 was a person by using imagination and creativity. There is nothing wrong with this draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:What_is_2020_was_a_person%3F 2601:205:C002:D1E0:B89D:D345:D0C3:217F (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC) I request for a re review because I want to know what if 2020 was a person. If it is, there will be punishments for this year, 2020.[reply]

2601:205:C002:D1E0:B89D:D345:D0C3:217F (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you are trying to do with that draft, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. That is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is a place to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know if 2020 was a person? But what if 2020 came to your house? Can 2020 drink coffee? 2601:205:C002:D1E0:5991:1D21:CB4C:7962 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they'd tell you to stop wasting volunteers' time and find a different place for your fanfiction. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:05:58, 15 May 2022 review of submission by Mruthsanderson

Mruthsanderson (talk · contribs)

I think that if one is a Senior Wrangler - this is very notable and you even have a wikipage dedicated to these people !! The material is not self published, since one article was in a School magazine historically (it is in the School archive) other material is in a Cambridge College archive in addition to the school archive. If people wanted to verify this, they would have to go to the archives themselves - it is not going to be electronically accessible ! I should have highlighted both the Senior Wrangler words in blue and Sir John Wolfenden's name as these both have wiki pages dedicated to them, I do not know how to do this in the text and would appreciate you could tell me.

I do not like the inference of the editor that the material cited has been self-published elsewhere to support the article - this could not be further from the truth. The gentleman in question is deceased and the articles cited are historical and reside in archives at Cambridge University and at Uppingham School (not on-line but verifiable as the Archivists could be asked to provide the material).

best regards, Mark Prof. Mark R.Sanderson

Mruthsanderson (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mruthsanderson: please review the notability guideline at WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The sources cited in Draft:David Dunbar (mathematician) are all primary, and too close to the subject to be considered independent (which is what the 'self-published' comment referred to). They are also offline, which in itself is fine, but they must still be published sources (which school archives probably aren't), and cited with sufficient details to enable a third party to verify them if they wanted to. Hope this clarifies the matter, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was not written in that vein as a "social media platform" or the other attributes that you cite "discussion forum, or advertising space for 'sharing' or otherwise promoting your community" this is extremely cynical. It was a historical biography of a Senior Wrangler for which there is a page and also there are biographical articles for the mathematicians listed there in that article. Quite straitforward. Mruthsanderson (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not as Doublegrazing mentions, school archives but Cambridge College archives. Quite straightforward "typo" Mruthsanderson (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mruthsanderson: one of the draft's sources is described as school archive, hence my comment. And whether school or college archive, either way the issue remains that they are not published, and may not be available for verification by members of the public. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes I agree, they are unpublished, but there is no way through this impasse as this archived material is not web accessible. Mruthsanderson (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being web-accessible is completely irrelevant - we accept offline sources. It not being published is the problem. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the Prizeman and Degree information was published by Cambridge University at the time, the archive at Clare College is the store record 193.61.206.7 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:48, 15 May 2022 review of submission by Birbd

Birbd (talk · contribs)

Birbd (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Birbd although you haven't actually asked a question, let me pre-empt one and answer anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a social media platform, discussion forum, or advertising space for 'sharing' or otherwise promoting your community. This is why your submission was rejected, and subsequently deleted. The various links posted on your talk page provide further information on relevant policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:23, 15 May 2022 review of submission by SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES

SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Alternative ideas for the pattern of magnetic field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there!

I would like to learn why this has been rejected if it is a legitimate theory, even if it has not been accepted yet by official science. The thing is, Wikipedia even has a page for Flat Earth theory, which is absolutely demonstrably false. So, how comes you reject this hypothesis if it even has some evidence?

SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES: see WP:OR, WP:V, WP:REF. Wikipedia reports/summarises what other, reliable published sources have said about a subject. This is not the place to propound new 'alternative ideas'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:21, 15 May 2022 review of submission by 2601:205:C002:D1E0:5991:1D21:CB4C:7962

2601:205:C002:D1E0:5991:1D21:CB4C:7962 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:What is 2020 was a person? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added many lines and details and proved that what if 2020 was a person.

2601:205:C002:D1E0:5991:1D21:CB4C:7962 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. First time can be regarded as humorous. Keep doing it, and eventually you will cross the line into disruptive. We have over 3,000 pending bona fide drafts to review; please do not create unnecessary work by submitting something that stands no chance of becoming part of an encyclopaedia. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the draft to a deletion debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]