Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 December 21

= December 21 =

00:53:50, 21 December 2018 review of submission by Whiiiiims
Astro Black is as notable as a lot of the entries in his same category. He is internationally known and recognised in his field of music. The amount of touring that he does correlates this assertion. He plays some of the worlds biggest festivals and events including Fuji Rock Festival, the number four top festival in the world. Astro Black has been a part of award winning group and is known for his contributions to his field.

Whiiiiims (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

03:36:31, 21 December 2018 review of draft by Songuitar333
Songuitar333 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a reliable source about Geoff Levin. Would this help the article? http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/People_The_60s_rock_hitmakers_with_the_Larry_Norman_connection_/64361/p1/

09:58:45, 17 December 2018 review of draft by Kisscsi
Can I ask for This article that hoe do I Add Reference or Notabilty for the Article??

Thanks.

Telex80 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

05:27:15, 21 December 2018 review of submission by Pberson
Clearly, Wikipedia has an issue with this page. This company has developed an advanced algorithm to rank to doctors and intuitions throughout the world. The clearly have an interesting piece of technology. They have fully automated analyzing of medical publications, algorithmically extract the crucial information and interesting this into a database to help the patient find the best institutions and doctors. I have been asked to determine what it the issue and how might we resolved it. Thank you.

Pberson (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this is one of Frayae's. programming Geek (talk, contribs) 06:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * - I'm inclined to agree with the previous reviews. There are 6 sources. 3 of them are the site itself, so obviously aren't independent. Neither the Biomedics's journal or the ABC News sources cover it in sufficient detail. I can't access the Patient's Playbook, but a medical-oriented article should have at least two-clear cut sources.


 * Pberson, to fix the issue, hunt down 2 sources that discuss Expertscape itself in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * - OK so if they were able to get to external sources that explain what they are doing then it would have merit? In this case how much detail do they have to divulge? What to say that person would just create a new site doing the same thing and maybe do it better? Or Maybe this is just not a place for them on Wikipedia. Can you explain how this Doximity Article is different? Is it cause the references? I think I now understand what you want. Please confirm if Expertscape was to get to external references to state what they doing you would be ok and Expertscape with be Notable. Am I on the right track??
 * Nosebagbear (talk) - Nosebagbear do you agree with my statments


 * - So there's no way the amount of detail that is necessary should reach anywhere near valuable information. Even more relevantly, for there to be the type of secondary-source coverage that is suitable (reliable and independent (which, as a side-note, rules out most interviews)) that information must already be available for people to see in the public. Effectively, wikipedia content should never reveal anything new to the public, just make it easier to access. Doximity has coverage from the Washington Post, the New York Times & U.S. News & World Report, as well as a couple of potentially suitable sources - very high quality sourcing. None of that information would be viewed as trade secrets.


 * Having not heard of Expertscape before now, all I can say is that the suitable sourcing and notability are functionally equivalent here (a NASDAQ company you could feel fairly confident that there is sourcing out there). I would suggest you have a read of WP:NCORP (which is the organisational notability rules, which are stricter than usual) and WP:CORPDEPTH - which excludes some types of "basic/regular/unhelpful" sources, even if from a good publisher. News articles that mainly talk about venture capitalism funding is a common example of this issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

09:21:57, 21 December 2018 review of submission by CPGLCONGO
Hello... I'm resqueting to another re-review of the page Amini Cishugi because I find Google articles about him. I was about to create this page, I find it all ready created. CPGLCONGO (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * - it doesn't get re-reviewed unless you resubmit it. I've done that now, so it should be reviewed some time within the next three weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

18:27:47, 21 December 2018 review of draft by Botimus
Can you provide clarification on what additional information do you need. I have linked a Columbus Dispatch article which clearly defines the artist as relevant to the Columbus Ohio region. As compared to [Steadyfire] who also has limited references in their article with broken links? Why is one allowed on Wikipedia but not the other?

Botimus (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . 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 policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". 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. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.


 * To be accepted, Draft:Picasso's Dream would need to cite reliable, independent, secondary sources that demonstrate that the band is notable (satisfies the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). The Dispatch article doesn't help do that because it's a primary source interview where the leader of the band talks about the band, with no independent analysis by the interviewer. Based on that article and on the draft's description of them, they appear to be far from notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

19:40:26, 21 December 2018 review of draft by ThunderheadMars
I Am an american Singer/Musician/Recording Artist by the name Thunderhead (Barry Andrew Madison) There are supposed to be umlats over the u but I don't know how to do this. I need to make a wiki page for my Music and Art and Writings and Film, But I am dumb. Please Help The Dumb Monkey

www.YouTube.com/thunderheadsun

ThunderheadMars (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

20:14:47, 21 December 2018 review of submission by Unarosaèunarosa
The review by AngusWOOF was
 * "Wikipedia is not for compiling lists of pop culture trivia: WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:POPCULTURE. If there are some notable cultural references they can be explained in the book's article."

The quotations from The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana are not pop culture trivia. (Pop culture!? Umberto Eco?)

Notable cultural references in the novel are not "some", but hundreds - literally hundreds.

Are these important/relevant/notable/encyclopedic? Yes, they are, for example Eugenio Scalfari, in his article on the novel, says, among other things, that Umberto Eco is an expert in his field, that he is an experimentalist, an innovator, and that in his novel he builds a multimedia film script by assembling songs, poems, quotations, pieces recovered from a common past, figurines, comic strips, which have made the history of communication of half a century.

Pages like this or this are obviously of great value.

I can add many references to the article, to do the same for Umberto Eco's novel. The question is if the community of Wikipedia wants it or not.

Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Divine Comedy has a number of books and papers that go into the detail as to the cultural references used in the book. List of cultural references in the Divine Comedy. The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, a 2004 novel, does not even have a detailed analysis or reception section. If the novel is known for its vast amount of cultural references, then a paragraph / section can be written about it as with The Simpsons and Ready_Player_One_(film).  this isn't Wikia or TV.com where every cultural reference from a chapter or episode can be catalogued as pointing to something.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If there are notable cultural references, why not add them? They are cultural references from the work of one of the most prominent personality of our time to hundreds of prominent personalities of all time. Extraordinarily interesting for many reasons but, among other things, also because The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana is the most autobiographic of Eco's works - it actually speaks of his cultural background and connections, from his early education on - it is a small oasis of high-quality intertextuality lost in the vast network of near-meaningless connections of the information age. There are already published academic works on this.
 * I can't see the analogy with the Simpsons or a TV movie which are highly commercial products. However, if someone else wants to add a short paragraph/section to the main article, they can do that as well.
 * As I am contributing to this project, for the moment I will keep focusing on that.
 * Thank you for your time.
 * Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unarosaèunarosa You say there are already published academic works on this. Any addition to Wikipedia on the subject of intertextual allusions in Eco's novel would need to be based on such academic works: preferably, for each allusion listed you would give citations to one or more of these works and summarise what they say about it. That would (I hope) be accepted. In Wikipedia we seek to include topics that other writers have found noteworthy enough to comment upon in published writings, not what we Wikipedia editors may ourselves think is noteworthy Noyster  (talk),  16:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for the records:
 * A quotation is a quotation and does not need an external source to confirm that, not even on Wikipedia, nowhere on Wikipedia this is true, or Wikipedia would not exist - you would need an external source Z to support the external source Y which supports the external source X which supports the external source W…
 * A quotation just needs the direct reference to the original author and work being quoted. You can find thousands and thousands of examples on Wikipedia where this is the case.
 * Quotations - to quote Eco - are known, common knowledge. In their published works, scholars do not report the author and work of the quotations because these are known, they are common knowledge, and if there is a rule that all follow is to keep unessential details to a minimum (unessential on a Journal article or essay, but not unessential to non-experts).
 * What scholars do say - and I can provide lots of references on this - is that Eco is using an entire universe of quotations to define the lost identity of the amnesiac character - who has, let's quote Eco again, a common past, a past common to many. That is why a list of quotations is relevant/notable in itself, that is why it is justified on an encyclopedia. And it can be legally done because those quotations are not property of Eco - nor Eco would have challenged that: he acknowledges most quotations by reporting them in italics (that was his entire point, wasn't it?).
 * What is obvious to experts and competent readers - author and work whence the quotation is extracted - is not necessarily obvious to others. That's why annotated lists are useful: to allow the 12 year young student who is up for a challenge, or the 18 year old young student who should have been ready long ago, to approach texts that would otherwise be prohibitive and obscure (only for experts, a bit like Finnegans Wake, in a sense).
 * On the other hand, selecting a few quotations from a work such as "The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana" would indeed be original research and, on an encyclopedia, it would also be disreputable, dishonest, as it would require an utterly arbitrary choice of what deserves and what does not deserve to be included. Furthermore it would give undue weight to the random opinion of the random scholar who would focus on one topic and ignore all the rest. In his work, Eco pushes the reader to accept that the random quotation from a poet like Rafael Alberti, completely irrelevant to most, completely unknown to most (but not to scholars), is indeed important to define an era that is common to many and matters, or should matter, to them too.
 * No intention of convincing you at all - as I see that this is a discussion which, like many a question of philosophy, or literature, or something else, might be prolonged six centuries.
 * Thank you for your attention and let's leave it at that.
 * Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)