Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 26 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 28 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


August 27[edit]

04:45:44, 27 August 2021 review of draft by Welbynow[edit]


Hello!

I was going to make a list of all webtoons published on the digital web comic website WEBTOON. They have a different site for different languages (English, Korean, Spanish, etc).

I think the idea is similar to Wikipedia articles like List of Disney theatrical animated feature films. But I'm not sure, so I wanted some verification that this article is a good idea so I should continue working on it. Or if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards I can stop.

Thanks!

Welbynow (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:35, 27 August 2021 review of submission by IncompleteBits[edit]


The reviewer, User:AngusWOOF, of the page above gave as the reason for declining it that academic "Departments are not independently notable." The experience which initially motivated me to draft the page was coming across the Princeton University Department of Physics and MIT Department of Physics pages and subsequently the IIT Physics Department, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Columbia University Physics Department, UCSB Physics Department, University of Houston Physics Department, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh (although its title is "school," this page is about a department and not a college), Durham University Department of Physics, Department of Physics, Lund University, Cavendish Laboratory, and Heidelberg University Faculty of Physics and Astronomy pages; I wonder whether A.) the reviewer's assessment of notability was consistent with the consensus assessment and those articles should not exist (and, presumably, should not have existed since the years of their creation [although I am largely ignorant to Wikipedia's standards, it seems to me naively that the threshold for notability should drop with the encyclopedia's size, therefore with time, in order to optimally raise depth under the constraint of quality]), B.) the reviewer's assessment of notability was not consistent with the consensus assessment and the accurately-reviewed publishing of the other pages listed, or C.) there is a reason for the asymmetry between the notability of UCLA's physics department and that of Princeton's, MIT's, IIT's, the University of Manchester's, the University of Oxford's, Columbia University's, UCSB's, the University of Houston's, the University of Edinburgh's, Durham University's, Lund University's, the University of Cambridge's, and the University of Heidelberg's. Thanks for taking the time to help.

IncompleteBits (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


In reading other posts on the help desk section, I came across the Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments page and read it, and that led me to the notability page and to the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page. I hadn't realized that anybody could create an article without review absent restrictions on their accounts, so that the "other stuff exist" argument shouldn't necessarily be strong makes perfect sense. Although I did not find any mention of academic departments in particular in my brief search, I believe the UCLA physics department meets the ORG notability requirements, namely that a critical amount of reliable, independent, secondary significant coverage exists on the department. If the above arguments are found unconvincing, I'll search for some representative sources in response. Although this does not pertain directly to a notability criterion (and one might argue that it is directly in disagreement with the rule that no institution is inherently notable), my feeling is that academic departments share with other subsets of academic institutions some notability on account of their time-integrated historical consequence; that is, they are ordinarily active above a meaningful threshold over very long periods of time. I understand that notability is about the amount of activity/the public affect rather than any probability that the affect will continue or, more precisely, the time variable's role in the object of the page's achievement of the affect (the explosion of an atom bomb and some war might be similarly notable according to a rough heuristic.) IncompleteBits (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IncompleteBits. The reviewer is correct about consensus. Schools, colleges, and departments within a university, other than law schools and medical schools, are generally not considered notable separate from their university. Any exception to the rule would have to be based mainly on independent (i.e. arms length from the university), reliable, secondary sources. The draft's only source containing significant coverage of the topic and not directly associated with the university is the website Physics History Network, published by the American Institute of Physics. They say their information is from vetted sources. In the case of their biographies, that means the subjects themselves. If the institutions are similarly their source for their profiles of institutions, then they aren't very independent. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Worldbruce, thank you for the clear response. The google search I did the other day didn't yield any good significant coverage on the department itself (plenty on its students, alumni, faculty, and activities, but those are their own topics) other than the AIP's page, and I'm sure you're right that their information was confirmed by the university. Since it doesn't seem like the page meets the notability requirements, I'll go ahead and forego resubmitting any updated draft. From a cursory look at the significant coverage which exists on the departments which I originally listed to make the "other stuff exists" argument, it appears as though many are candidates for deletion via the 8th reason for deletion. Is there any way I can aid in facilitating their review by an admin? -IncompleteBits (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IncompleteBits: No admin is necessary. Pick the article least likely to be able to demonstrate notability, perhaps University of Houston Physics Department or IIT Physics Department. If it isn't notable, and were nominated for deletion, it likely would be merged or redirected as an alternative to deletion. So go straight to proposing a merger to its university article. It commonly takes two weeks to a month to form a consensus about whether a merge should be performed. Learn from the merger discussion, and move on to the next department when the first is finished. Repeat until there are no stand alone articles about non-notable departments. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:16:27, 27 August 2021 review of draft by TheGremlin[edit]


iwanturCAT (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for feedback I'm getting on an article I initially wrote in chronological order to make it easier for readers based on an encyclopedic entry. However, an admin rejected it and said encyclopedic on wikipedia means prose. I looked this up and compared to encyclopedic entries and redid it regardless based on prose and some examples from helpful mods, as well as a few other pages. They also said I did not have enough references so I added. This is the company I tried to write an article on first [[1]] and have started over from scratch on a completely different one, than on an item, however it seems I get subjective feedback and one mod said the guidelines are subjective based on interpretation. Anyways, I rewrote in prose, resubmitted and the reviewers say it is exactly the same, however in addition to rewriting, I reorganized it, removed several things that could be misinterpreted and used less detail. Headings are different, and it's not chronological to make it easier for people to follow as per actual encyclopedic examples I originally used for examples as this was not 'prose'

I'm considering dumbing it down again but I already tried this with the other 2 unrelated article attempts, so what I'd like to do is start with the first paragraph - just the first paragraph, and get feedback on what the issue is if any. I see several other articles written in this factual manner, so I do not see how it is an issue. Please advise iwanturCAT (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:46, 27 August 2021 review of submission by Somesh JaiHind[edit]


Somesh JaiHind (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:13, 27 August 2021 review of submission by 121.218.130.25[edit]


121.218.130.25 (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

How may I delete this page and re-submit another version in the future please? I can't seem to edit this anymore.

Thanks.

10:48:25, 27 August 2021 review of submission by 121.218.130.25[edit]


121.218.130.25 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


How do I prove more that it is a notable subject? The SuanShu library has been cited on government website; there is a book on the subject; there are journal articles citing it; there are many google searches and other independent websites making tutorials about it.

It is one of the popular Java numerical libraries. Not sure why this is not notable enough. Can you help please?

11:20:59, 27 August 2021 review of submission by Rajmk143143[edit]

Because I want this man's article to be approved. I edited it and submit but it's rejected on notability issues. I strongly believe this man is notable in India and most part of the countries because of works. Please what should i do now to get this article approved?

Rajmk143143 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do would be to find reliable (no social media/wikis), independent (no interviews or press releases) sources with significant coverage about this man. So far all the draft as to offer are 11 copies of the same press release. If you cannot find at least two or three sources I am afraid working on this any longer is a waste of everyone's time. If you can find at least two or three such sources, please approach the reviewer (TheAafi) to reconsider his rejection. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:53:57, 27 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Yodeddy[edit]


I was creating an article and one editor said that the grammy nominations meant notobility and that I just needed to describe what the grammy nomination was. Then after I made the changes I had another editor say that grammy nominations dont mean notibilty? Also I see other audio engineers page with the same things on them that were denied in my article.


Yodeddy (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yodeddy. A Grammy nomination may make a musician (a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theater group, or instrumentalist, for instance) notable, but Wikipedia does not consider audio engineers, producers, and others more loosely associated with a recording to be musicians, so having something they worked on nominated for a Grammy does not make them notable.
If articles about non-notable audio engineers exist, those articles should be deleted. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:36:58, 27 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bubkiss74[edit]


I submitted a draft for review a few weeks ago. "Draft:Rakan AlYaqout", I have addressed the problems and made yhe necessary revisions and would like to submit it for review again. How can I do that? Thank you.


Bubkiss74 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubkiss74: the previous review notice had been removed, which also removed the "Resubmit" button. I have restored it for you. Notices from reviewers, including comments and declines, should be left on the draft. If and when it is accepted, all such notices will be removed. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:08, 27 August 2021 review of draft by Myhanh[edit]


Dear All, Sorry for my newbie. I would like to improve the article which has been declined. I would like to know detail the reason why it was declined. How can I improve it. Thank you Myhanh (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:08, 27 August 2021 review of draft by Fashionpolice007[edit]



Hi! Can you please provide advice for how this may be written in order to meet your criteria? All of the sources ARE from reliable, secondary sources that are independent from the subject. As well, the sources that are cited are feature stories vs. minor mentions. All statements included are neutral facts about the subject, and not promotional in tone — with third party articles citing every statement made. Any assistance would be helpful. Thanks!



Fashionpolice007 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionpolice007 If you work for this company, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing declaration. Please also review conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and 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. Sources like press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, or other primary sources do not establish notability. Your sources seem to be just those things. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:03, 27 August 2021 review of submission by Uwmadisoncdis[edit]


I have updated the doc to include 3 more sources not written by UW Madison at all. All of these sources meet the wikipedia notability requirements of being significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. There are now 8 such articles.

To create the most information based, encyclopedic article, there are sources linked to the school as well. Madison is not a very big market, and therefore many sources of knowledge are from the school itself or other publications in Madison and Milwaukee. However, when compared to published articles from schools like Berkeley and University of Illinois Department of Computer Science, this article has as many or more independent sources.

I disagree with the claim that this article is a "blatant advertisement". It is a holistic picture of the new school of Computing, Data, and Information Sciences that uses verified information to create an encyclopedic article for the public to learn more about the school.

I am also not being compensated in any way for writing this article. If you could either approve the article or give me concrete reasons that it is not being accpeted yet, along with suggestions on how to improve it, that would be great.

Thank you for your help! Uwmadisoncdis (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uwmadisoncdis. Schools, colleges, and departments within a university, other than law schools and medical schools, are generally not considered notable separate from their university. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
The two-year old School of Computer Data and Information Sciences has yet to make a significant mark in its field. Even if it were notable (suitable for a stand alone article), the bulk of the article would have to come from reliable, arms length, secondary sources. The draft relies heavily on university sources. Even those published outside the university merely parrot its PR department ("The University of Wisconsin-Madison announced", "according to a press release", etc.) or are primary source interviews with school officials. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing can improve the draft to the point of acceptability. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:42, 27 August 2021 review of submission by Mdmasudrana09[edit]


Mdmasudrana09 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:49, 27 August 2021 review of draft by Тошболта[edit]


Thank you for the comment. I certainly intend to continue working to improve my article. So I have at least 5 more links to sources of information that I intend to add. But I have a question: the scientist I am writing about lived and worked in a Russian and Uzbek speaking country. Naturally, all sources are in these languages. For example: Sodikova, Maksuda (2004). “Uzbek women scientists” = “Uzbek olimalari” (Uzbek) / Tura Mirzaev (editor-in-chief). - ("Science") P. 186-188. Tashkent Uzbekistan: “Fan”. p. 240. ISBN 5-648-02983-7, editor-in-chief Tura Mirzaev is an academician of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan like other members of the editorial board of this source and who knew Nuritdinova as a scientist and as a person. Out of 240 pages of this book dedicated to women scientists of Uzbekistan, 4 pages are dedicated to Nuritdinova Feruza Rakhimovna. Is that not a reliable source? Most of my article is based on this source. The obtained patent is confirmed by the USSR Patent Office. Is this a reliable source? Or an article by Nuritdinova's brother written in English and registered with Copyright. Is it a reliable and verifiable source? I want to understand whether I should continue to work or will all my sources still be deemed unreliable due to their nationality?

Тошболта (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Тошболта. For practical reasons, the English-language Wikipedia prefers English-language sources when available, but sources may be in other languages.
  • From the way you cite the book, I can't tell who the publisher is, or determine if an archived copy exists. Those factors affect whether Wikipedia considers it a reliable source.
  • The USSR Patent Office would be a reliable primary source about a patent, but holding a patent is almost never encyclopedic content for the biography of a scientist, doesn't help demonstrate notability, and shouldn't be mentioned in the biography.
  • Something written by her brother would lack independence, it wouldn't be an arms-length source. It wouldn't help demonstrate notability, but would be reliable for uncontroversial information.
--Worldbruce (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:20:33, 27 August 2021 review of submission by Fatnana121[edit]

Finalized drafts to comply with your suggestions and protocol but have been told not enough articles habe been written about me. My question is: How many articles do you require for consideration? Fatnana121 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fatnana121. Novice Wikipedians are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. There don't seem to be such sources about her 1969-1971 authorship of the "Suzan Says" column. Her more recent self-published books won't make her notable. Draft:Suzan Loeb has been declined again for the reasons explained there. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_27&oldid=1041884790"