Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 5

= January 5 =

01:41:29, 5 January 2019 review of draft by Lengau
Hi,

I'm trying to understand one of the comments on my [Draft:Pixel Slate|Article for Creation draft], about notability. I don't understand what is meant by the sources not appearing to be independent - I intentionally used third-party sources rather than Google's own product marketing in certain areas in order to hopefully prevent neutrality issues - while some of the sources used are primarily about Google products (e.g. 9to5Google, which I used heavily due to their fantastic breakdown of the specs), I don't see this as being any different from using a 9to5Mac or Cult of Mac article in citations about an Apple-related page. I modeled the page on the Surface Pro 6 page, though I left out the Reviews section so far as I haven't yet had time to collect sufficient reviews. (I also didn't want to create a section with no citations whatsoever like the Reception section of the Surface Pro 6 page.)

Additionally, how do I formally declare that I don't have any financial connection with Google (and my only real connection with the Pixel Slate is owning one), and that I'm not being paid to make the article? To be entirely honest in my motivations, the primary reason I created the article was because I wanted a Wikipedia Infobox for the Pixel Slate because I was sick of having to search for the answers I wanted from a gazillion sources, so I figured I might as well add that. Given the sheer size of the infobox, I decided it would be better as a page.

Thanks,

Lengau (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi  pls read WP:PRODUCT and consider add/merge the info into  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I read that page before deciding to create the page as opposed to adding it to the Google Pixel page. It's unclear to me why the Pixel Slate is less notable than many other products that have their own pages, including the iPad (2018), Surface Pro 6, and other specific instances of both of those product lines. I'm concerned that adding all the relevant information about the Pixel Slate to the main Google Pixel page would also make it rather unwieldy, especially as that page seems to shy away from providing too much detail about each individual product, instead providing a "Main article" link below each product's subheading. Thanks. Lengau (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi AfC reviewers, kindly comments or review the page if you have different opinions/findings that of mine. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I have added just the infobox to the Google Pixel page (direct link to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Pixel&oldid=876901765), and it pretty soundly breaks the flow of that page, moving the photo of the Chromebook Pixel down next to the references section. Lengau (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am willing to defer to the judgment of other reviewers if other reviewers think that product notability indicates that a separate article should be accepted. Comments?  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to understand what makes this less notable than other, similar pages such as the Surface Pro 6 which, under my reading of 's description and the notability guidelines would be better suited to include into the main Surface Pro page. Should we be merging the Surface Pro pages like the iPad Pro? If not, can someone please explain why, as this seems like an arbitrary and inconsistent application of the rules. Lengau (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

02:32:44, 5 January 2019 review of submission by ObscureF9
I have added and amended the sources as suggested. I thank you for your time in reviewing and woukd appreciate any suggestions. ObscureF9 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

03:05:20, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ethan Gaming05
Ethan Gaming05 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

03:13:05, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ethan Gaming05
I would like to know how the box at the top of the page that reads "This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and contains an image of a stop sign. I would like to know this since i have fixed what it is that needs to be fixed to be Wikipedia approved (i hope!). Thanks a bunch! Ethan Gaming05 (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

03:58:03, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ethan Gaming05
I am asking how to get rid of the "Draft:" in front of my article title. Thank you! :D Ethan Gaming05 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ethan Gaming05 - Well, first, please use one inquiry rather than three about one draft. You are spamming the Help Desk with multiple queries.  Second, how you get rid of Draft in front of the title is to have the draft accepted.  However, the draft has been rejected by User:SemiHypercube.  I wouldn't have said that it was contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but I think that it is contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines on lists, and I would have declined or rejected it for notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

04:53:39, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Divyansh Srivastava
Divyansh Srivastava (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 06:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

04:58:30, 5 January 2019 review of submission by DavidSFly
May I know why my resources are not reliable? And if this is not acceptable, what type of resources can I look for given name articles? Thanks. DavidSFly (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Greetings to you. Please click on the "blue highlighted texts" on the grey panel on top of the draft page and they will lead to pages which details the info of your questions. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

05:12:54, 5 January 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:214B:E700:C3:6FAF:3B6:3B44
2605:E000:214B:E700:C3:6FAF:3B6:3B44 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

07:36:11, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Waeltely
The artist is a playback singer who is now associated with the malayalam film industry. He is now featured on IMDb for his work with a well known feature film as well - please refer the links provided and reconsider. This page will be updated as and when updates are made available.

Waeltely (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can be "featured" on IMDb,it confers no notability whatsoever, and Facebook is not a reliable source either I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

07:56:18, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ijduncan
I have made the suggested changes.

Ijduncan (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - you need to resubmit it to AfC. Once you've done that it should be reviewed within three weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes but how do i do that? There not a big resubmit to AFC button. All I can do is publish the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijduncan (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

08:42:49, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Asarjima
please advice how can I improve the article. Asarjima (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:07:21, 5 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mattshea409
I don't know how to make it look professional

Mattshea409 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To achieve the professional Wikipedia "look", follow the Manual of Style. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

23:51:40, 5 January 2019 review of draft by Gpriaulx
Good Morning,

I have been working on trying to get a Wikipedia presence for ReactiveUI. ReactiveUI is a software library ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ReactiveUI ). So far, this has been formed with the input of a number of people, as discussed here, and in the Reactivex slack group ( https://github.com/reactiveui/ReactiveUI/issues/1521 ). This is a technical topic, and the library and concepts themselves, in their own domain has a steep learning curve, so we have kept the current format general to some degree. For the sake of understanding, it is comparable to React ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) ), but on the Windows platform, rather than web based. This has been rejected a number of times, which I believe is due to quality references. I don't believe many further references exist on the internet; however in this domain I don't see how better references could really exist than those we have put forward.

Maybe I am missing something, or need to make better use of the references I do have to support this entry. I am having trouble unpacking the feedback in the context of this article; hence why I am here today.

At this point I would like to also refer to Reactive Extensions, the parent technology enabling ReactiveUI. Reactive Extenions Wikipedia presence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_extensions ) only references primary sources; more specifically, one primary source ( http://reactivex.io/ ).

The references include: - An interview with the creator of ReactiveUI (Paul Betts), about ReactiveUI, with Jesse Liberty - a published author (actually both are) on Reactive Extensions, the parent technology. - Hanselminutes Podcast and blog entries from Scott Hanselman - a Microsoft Employee with a an independent blog/publication; one of the most credible independent sources on Microsoft tools and technologies in this industry. - Videos from Channel 9 about what ReactiveUI is and how to use it. Channel 9 is a Microsoft Technology disclosure and training site that is run by Microsoft. - Various articles and examples from Xamarin related sources. ReactiveUI is very popular in the Xamarin community.

Just to be clear, ReactiveUI is not a Microsoft project or product. It is built on their technologies and as such is discussed within Microsoft related technical circles. I do have one more important source up my sleeve which I haven't used yet, which is a book by Kent Boogart called 'You, I, and ReactiveUI', which is more or less seen as the gold standard documentation for ReactiveUI. I have been hesitant to use it so far however because I don't feel it clearly states anywhere throughout "ReactiveUI is THIS, created by GROUP on DATE to solve PROBLEM" which really seems to be the scope of a Wikipedia presence.

So far I have gotten what I consider to be nonconstructive feedback; particularly regarding technical software subjects. If training material by Microsoft (who otherwise have no involvement in the development of the product), entirely about the subject, isn't a notable source - I don't understand what IS. There isn't going to be articles in newspapers about many(any?) software products coming to market nor simply existing, let alone sub-components of software products. Technical books are seldom written about independent software libraries anymore due to the nature of the industry, although one does exist about ReactiveUI. Useful printed media in this domain is largely out of date before completion. Because of this, the examples given in the responses don't really offer any direction. I feel our references are largely inline with that of React ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) ) and with more depth than Reactive Extensions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_extensions ) which both have been published and are relevant to ReactiveUI - I don't understand what I am missing or doing wrong here, nor where the expectation actually is.

Any advice on how to lift the standard of this article, satisfy the rejection concerns, or better use the references I have would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Gui

Gpriaulx (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, first off, remember: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - in other words, just because some articles about similarly technical topics presently exist, doesn't mean their existence serves as an argument for the creation of a new article. It could be that none of these topics is notable enough, as we define it, to justify having an encyclopedia article about it. If you can't find articles in known, reliable sources that discuss this specific topic, it could be that it just is too obscure and undocumented. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)