Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 February 10

= February 10 =

06:48:55, 10 February 2018 review of submission by Poojak92
Hi, I have created an article about a subject. The contributions of the subject have been long forgotten and hence it prompted me to create an article on Wikipedia. He has expired long ago (1916-1986) and hence there is minimal data on the internet to prove his notoriety. I believe there are many such personalities whose contributions have not been recorded due to lack of technology and other reasons in many parts of the world but are note-worthy. He is an idol since I have been associated with his work for some time now. The content entered has been extracted from a biography वसंतवैभव - वसंतराव घाटगे जीवन आणि वारसा (in Marathi) which has been published. I have used my perspective and have given inline citations as footnote validating the facts. The article was declined twice. I think it qualifies to be approved on Wikipedia. Please help. Poojak92 (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . We are discussing Draft:Vasantrao Ghatge. The main source for the article is a biography published by the "Vasantrao Ghatge Memorial Trust". In effect, this appears to be a self-published source. Reliable sources for use on Wikipedia are those with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and error correction. For books, that almost always requires that the book is issued by a well-established publisher. It is not necessary that the sources for Wikipedia articles are available online, but it is necessary that they be reliable and that you furnish complete bibliographic information. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not in the business of evaluating biography articles, but my instinct is to assume that if a long deceased individual has made enough of an impact in their community for people to set up a memorial trust in his name and to publish a book-length biography, then he's probably notable. Provided the existence of this book can be verified, I would accept the draft and let any further questions of notability be settled at AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Instinct is a useful motivator for people,, but for an encyclopedia article, we need solid references to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I understand that Wikipedia has solid policies and hence it is a respected source globally. Having said that, as you mentioned about the reputed publishers, agreed that the publishing is not well-known but that does not make it any less established or less reputed trust. I am sure the set standards of Wikipedia are not restricted only on the global level or to a handful of expert publishing firms. It is unfortunate that back then, six decades ago, nobody thought about recording the facts and publishing it online. The subject or his team did not have the luck or the means to be associated with an expert editorial control or a well-known publishing firm to note his contributions. It is the reason as to why I think it will be a small initiative to create a presence on Wikipedia. Last year when I started off with this article, I had to start from scratch. I was surprised when I read the book and found about his contributions to the place where I come from. Your concern over the independent sources is valid. The subject does not come from riches but gave employment and means to thousands during 1950s. It was quite a contribution in our country back then. I can only say that because of monetary, infrastructural and intellectual barriers; nobody had the acumen to think of something what I am trying to do in this space today. I believe that this would act as a motivation to bring back personalities who are notable but were unlucky and were probably not associated with note-worthy publishers when it came to making a mark on the Internet. I have given all efforts possible in collating and putting up this article. I hope my work is justified or else it will only undermine the contributions left behind by the subject.Poojak92 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I really don't see the issue with the independence of the source: if thirty years after someone's death, people have decided that his was significant enough to be worth the time to write a book-length biography about, then it's not particularly relevant where that biography was published by a local trust, or by some bigger publisher. If there are issues with it, there're definitely not of the quick-fail kind that would result in non-controversial consignment to draft space. I've moved that into the article namespace, so you're welcome to take it to AfD. Pinging as well. – Uanfala (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

23:52:03, 10 February 2018 review of submission by BTZorbas
The article is/was in its stub state. Meaninglessly moved to the draft state by someone who does not understand the very nature of the article. The first reference is the most reliable one for being cited 220 times The second reference is the most reliable one for being cited 99 times; Since the article contains ONLY the method definition and the method definition belongs exclusively to its author, Stevo Todorcevic, there is no need to add anything. Question: How to get a qualified reviewer of this article and move the article in its previous state (stub)? BTZorbas (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I declined the draft but I'm afraid my discussions with the author aren't getting very far. Perhaps another reviewer will have more success. KJP1 (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The author is an SPA sock-puppet whose edits are entirely centered around promoting the work Stevo Todorcevic. With a bit of luck he'll be blocked soon.  --JBL (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , for an article to be suitable for wikipedia, it needs Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent sources. Regardless if it is a stub article, it still needs independent sources. Can you provide the draft with independent sourcing?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article not a story about Kim Kardashian. It's about plain definition of a mathematical method. Calling upon WP:GNG makes no sense here. Question: How to get a qualified reviewer of this article and move the article in its previous state (stub)?--BTZorbas (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)