Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Help desk
< January 12 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 14 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 13[edit]

00:06:56, 13 January 2016 review of submission by MichaelCottam[edit]


I'm looking for a more detailed explanation of why my submission was declined. The reason given was a link to the notability article. Here's the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:InstallAware_Software

I've read the notability requirements pretty carefully, and I'd like to share my thoughts on why I do think it meets those requirements: "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet" - we've listed a number of really strong sources (Microsoft's developer magazine MSDN; multiple awards from Microsoft's Visual Studio Magazine; and Dev Source magazine (a Ziff-Davis publication...ZD being probably one of the biggest publishing houses in the world). IT Ninja is a subsidiary of Dell, and a huge resource for the development community. Granted, some of these don't have the article online, but we did provide screen shots taken from when the articles were online, or scans of the print magazines. From my perspective, these are really cornerstone publications in the industry, from the biggest software company in the world and by one of the biggest magazine publishing companies in the world. Yes, the field is a nerdy software niche, but each of these has millions of readers. "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - clearly InstallAware has had a significant effect on the software industry (in that a substantial percentage of application developers use InstallAware to make their install CDs), and on society (in that most PC users have at one point or another installed an application on their PC using InstallAware--although they might not have been aware of it, as the application developers typically put the application name and brand on the install dialog boxes). "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." - the articles in the Microsoft and Ziff-Davis publications are certainly in-depth, and those organizations are certainly reliable (given their sizes, their distribution, and who owns them...although I could throw Fox News in as a counter-example :-) and independent of InstallAware. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." - here, we have BOTH the multiple independent sources, and the amount written in the articles is certainly substantial. "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." - Rebecca Rohan is not affiliated with InstallAware in any way. Bob Kelly is not affiliated with InstallAware at all either. The Readers Choice awards: it's possible that Sinan voted for his own product, but the other thousands of Visual Studio Magazine readers who voted are not affiliated with InstallAware :-). Granted, the MSDN Magazine Europe article was written by Sinan, but he was selected to write that article simply because he's one of the giants in this tiny industry, having originally been part of the team that created the InstallShield product, which for a long time was the industry standard--then leaving there to create InstallAware. I can see how that article might not meet this test; but the other two, plus all the awards should meet the test. I think I've covered the important bits of the notability requirements, and I also think I've proven that this company meets those requirements. I'm interested to hear whether you think I'm off base on one or more of these points, or if there's a bit of the notability requirements I've skipped over that I should have addressed. Michael (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:05:07, 13 January 2016 review of submission by Wfmcdade[edit]

I understand that my article has been rejected because I have not shown clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion. Here is why I submitted the article "Jackson Pyrotechnic Explosion (Chester, PA)":

1. While doing genealogical research, I discovered that a relative (my great great uncle) was one of eight firefighters killed in a fire and explosion in Chester, PA in 1882.

2. Out of curiosity I decided to research how this firefighting disaster compared to others. I found the Wikipedia page "List of the deadliest firefighting disasters in the United States". That page states that "Below is a list of the deadliest firefighter disasters in the United States, in which more than five firefighters died." The fire in Chester, PA in 1882 was not included in the list on that page.

3. I decided to contribute to Wikipedia to add this historical event and correct the omission. I created a Wikipedia account, and edited the page "List of the deadliest...". That edit was accepted.

4. I then decided to write an article regarding this event.

5. I do not understand why this topic is not "...notable and worthy of inclusion...". Since Wikipedia has a page that lists firefighting disasters in which five or more firefighters were killed, and articles on those events, why is this event not notable? Is it worth my time to continue to work on the article or should I just stop?

6. I have also found that there was a "Jackson Pyrotechnic Factory Explosion" in Philadelphia, PA on March 29, 1862 - 20 years prior to this incident. I do not know if the "Jackson" involved in that explosion was the same man who had the factory in Chester, 20 miles away and 20 years later. That is something that I intend to research and add to the article later.

Thanks very much for your help. Wfmcdade (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 09:32:56, 13 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Robertsan[edit]


Hi all! I tried to create an article, but failed. I have a collection of 120 pages of newspaper- and magazines clippings of printed press articles and about 20 links, responding to the TRIO bienal. Thank you.

Robertsan (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:57:55, 13 January 2016 review of submission by 195.99.51.43[edit]


I submitted an article (Vlad Max) I added all the references I could find but it keeps getting rejected. I would like to know why?

195.99.51.43 (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Interplusinter: Hi, and welcome to the Help Desk! The draft was declined because it doesn't show whether Vlad Max is notable. On Wikipedia, notability basically means that a subject has been covered in a variety of reliable, independent sources in significant detail. I took a look through the references, and there are some problems with them:
  • the 15min.lt, lrt.lt and eurovision.tv sources only mention Vlad Max briefly. That is not substantive coverage, so it doesn't help show notability;
  • the YouTube link is by him, but not about him, so it's not really coverage of him;
  • the eurovisionapocalypse source is a blog, which isn't considered a reliable source;
  • wiwibloggs doesn't offer significant coverage (just three quick mentions of his name with no substantive content);
  • Facebook links are not reliable sources as they come from the user themselves; and
  • Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources.
In summary, none of the references really helps show why Vlad Max is notable. Coverage from different sources would be needed, and it should be substantial and in-depth in nature. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:46:15, 13 January 2016 review of draft by Gronk Oz[edit]


Greetings, Help Desk. I am asking this on behalf of Balquhidder2013, who has created Draft:Feargus Hetherington. Sorry if I am just too dumb to figure it out - please feel free to just point me to the instructions if there are some.

I am not an AfC reviewer, but the article looks in pretty good shape to me - not perfect yet, but better than many.

However, the problem is that neither of us knows how to submit this draft for an AfC review. My understanding is that's the next step. The instructions all explain the process by going through the Article wizard - but nothing about how to progress the article from Draft space if it did not go through the Wizard initially.

Any suggestions or pointers gratefully accepted!

Gronk Oz (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gronk Oz and Balquhidder2013: Hi, nice to see you here! I've gone ahead and submitted Draft:Feargus Hetherington for review. One easy way to submit a draft is to add {{subst:submit}} to the draft. You'll know you've done it correctly when the yellow "Review waiting" box appears on the draft.
Gronk Oz, if you would ever like to submit a draft on behalf of someone else in the future, then you can use the AfC helper script to do so. (Otherwise, if you just add {{subst:submit}} to a draft on behalf of someone else, any resulting feedback will be sent to your user talk page, and not the intended author's talk page.) Once you have the script installed, just select More > Review (AFCH) > Submit (it's the big blue button) > Someone else, and then put in their username. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smile.gifBrilliant - thank you! I will add that to my "cheat notes" because I'm sure it will come in handy again later.
Oh, and RESPECT for the little tribute you put in your signature. Indeed, the stars look very different today. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:45:10, 13 January 2016 review of submission by WillySchmidtHild[edit]


WillySchmidtHild (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am currently working on this entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jochen_H.H._Ehrich Someone for references.

Are my added references okay by now, or do I need more or other references?

best, Wilhelm S.

17:55:46, 13 January 2016 review of submission by Chishtiyasufi[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aale_Ahmed_Shah , Page Name Aale Ahmed Shah

Somehow i have deleted the Submit now buton from draft can anyone help thanking you Chishtiyasufi (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chishtiyasufi: I have restored some of the old comments from previous reviewers. You should now see the blue Submit button. However, before resubmitting I would strongly suggest searching for references that discuss Aale Ahmed Shah in significant detail. None of the references in the draft are really helpful to shoe notability, since they either just mention him very briefly, or are not from reliable sources. Take a look at the comments on the draft for some more helpful feedback about the draft. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:46:25, 13 January 2016 review of submission by UsaKE[edit]


USA AE 18:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Why was my page "the end of the world 2016" deleted?! I spent a lot of time and effort on that article, while you think it is okay to just go ahead and delete it!

@UsaKE: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. It appears that the page was deleted because its subject duplicated an existing article: Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Future. Any well-referenced content can be added to the existing article. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]