Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 28

= February 28 =

13:46:13, 28 February 2017 review of submission by 208.95.51.115
I wanted to ask for someone to upload a better resolution of a image, File:Ss logo.png, but it was really hard to navigate the wizard because it kept trying to send me to Commons to upload there (I at first missed the "If you don't have an account, you can upload without registering" line). I eventually had to pretend that it was a non-free image and go through the whole process needlessly. Instead of asking at the start "are you autoconfirmed" and "is it free," could you instead put Files for upload/Wizard/Search as the landing page, and then ask license questions only if someone's trying to upload a new image? If you try to upload a new version of the same image, copyright shouldn't be quite as much of a concern for the wizard, because the old version of the image should already have the right copyright tagging, and the new upload should have the same copyright status as what's already there. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

PS, I'm not asking about the talk page. My question is about Files for upload/Wizard, not Wikipedia talk:Files for upload/Wizard. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP address. Although you are not asking about the Talk page of WP:Files for upload/Wizard, that is exactly the place you should be discussing any proposed changes to the "Files for Upload/Wizard" page.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But User:NewYorkActuary, that talk page suggests that I come here with questions. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, IP address, but I see nothing at Files for upload/Wizard that directs a reader to come here with questions. Nor would there be any reason for it to do so, because we here are not involved in the uploading of images.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is at the talk page that you just linked, right at the top. I guess I'll go to the other place, since you don't feel like helping. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:38:17, 28 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Melvin Wachira
Melvin Wachira (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you're wondering why Draft:Holy Dave couldn't be accepted, it is because of the quality of the sources. The article in The Star is a good start. The piece in The Daily Nation, however, is only a very brief repetition, without any independent analysis, of something the subject shared on social media. The same goes for Nairobi Wire, which describes itself as a blog, as does Ghafla. It isn't clear whether mpasho has the characteristics of a reliable source. I couldn't find much information about it. Can you find more sources like The Star - in depth coverage in mainstream media - perhaps in connection with the Groove Awards? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

20:34:12, 28 February 2017 review of submission by Patrizia1961
Dear Articles for creation desk help,

I would highly appreciate your help to understand why my submission at Articles for creation has been declined and what should I do to modify the article so that it can be accepted in the free encyclopedia. The deMon2k code is a computational chemistry code. Similar codes such as ABINIT, ADF etc are published as articles in the free encyclopedia, as well. I hope to receive soon your help. Many thanks in advance.

Patrizia1961 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . There may be no way that the draft can be modified so that it will be accepted.


 * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia in the sense that there is no cost to read it, and no one can buy their way into it. That doesn't mean that anyone is free to add any topic they want to Wikipedia. The key to inclusion is meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. In essence, a subject has to have received significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. This is measured by what independent, reliable sources have written about it.


 * User:Patrizia1961/sandbox cites three reliable sources, but they are not independent of each other. Calaminici, Goursot, Köster, and Salahub are authors on all three papers, and Alvarez-Ibarra, Dominguez-Soria, Flores-Moreno, Gamboa, Geudtner, Mejia-Rodriguez, and Zuniga-Gutierrez are each authors on at least two of them. Multiple publications from the same authors or group are regarded as a single source for the purpose of notability. If the authors of the sources are also among the developers of the product, then they don't count at all towards demonstrating that the product is notable, because they aren't independent of it.


 * You note that articles about similar products exist. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains low quality content and high quality content. The argument that articles exist that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so more such articles should be created, is not one that will convince any experienced editors. See the essay "Other stuff exists" for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)