Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 22

= July 22 =

02:51:49, 22 July 2019 review of submission by Whatamindblast
Source list updated. Whatamindblast (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Why has this redirect not been approved yet?
07:06:29, 22 July 2019 review of submission by 120.146.29.20

Why has the Verdis request not be accepted yet? (redirect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects_and_categories#Redirect_request:_Verdis

07:17:46, 22 July 2019 review of submission by DoeEyed
DoeEyed (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Article amended with new references and links to other websites and sources. Pls review.

07:28:39, 22 July 2019 review of submission by Peter.R.Hill
Multiple citations have been added and some new content. Peter.R.Hill (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

08:11:57, 22 July 2019 review of draft by Nasimarad
Nasimarad (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

08:19:17, 22 July 2019 review of submission by Wangsophie110
Wangsophie110 (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 09:00:24, 22 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Walpola Layantha Perera
Dear Sir/Madam, I started to write a Wikipedia Article under the topic of Computer Reasoning. But today I got a message from a Wikipedia Administrator saying that my article was declined because there is another article exists under this title. But when I type Computer Reasoning it redirects me to Automated Reasoning page. I don't want to write about Automated Reasoning. I want to write about Computer Reasoning, which are two different subjects. Hence, could you please let me publish the Computer Reasoning Article? I would really appreciate if you could do so, because I am doing researches in this area, and if you could give me an opportunity, then I am planning to write much more under the Computer Reasoning title in this Wikipedia article page.

Thank you very much for your precious time and considerations.

Have a good day!

Respectfully, Walpola Laynatha Perera

Walpola Layantha Perera (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , you haven't explained how Computer Reasoning and Automated Reasoning are different topics. As far as I can tell, they're just two different terms for the same thing, so we shouldn't have two different articles.  I also see that you've created multiple copies of this (Talk:Computer reasoning, Computer Reasoning, and Wikipedia talk:Computer Reasoning).  I've gone ahead and removed those.  Please just continue to work on the single copy at Draft:Computer Reasoning.  But, to reiterate what I said earlier, the onus is on you to explain how this is a distinct topic from the existing Automated Reasoning article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)



Dear Mr. Roy Smith,

Thank you very much for your kind reply. I am doing some research work in this during my free times. But it will take me a few months since I am doing these things while I am doing a daytime job. But I am passionate about this subject. In the meantime, if you could give me a private email address to connect with you, then I can write you more about my theory. Because I don't want to write it on public forums before I get it published on Wikipedia. Yes Sir, I respect Wikipedia that much, because Wikipedia has helped lots of people like us to protect our work and let other people freely use our work as long as they use it for the good case.

Therefore, I would really appreciate if you could keep the opportunity open for me to resubmit the article under the topic of Computer Reasoning when I get my first stage research completed.

Thank you very much for your precious time and considerations, Mr. Roy Smith.

Have a good day Mr. Roy Smith!

Respectfully, Walpola Layantha Perera

Request on 10:29:04, 22 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by CommunityMC
How would I create a page for a company? Because my submission comment was it's more like an advertisement.

CommunityMC (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Most businesses are not notable (not suitable subjects for stand alone encyclopedia articles). See WP:BFAQ for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

12:12:53, 22 July 2019 review of submission by Redmercw
Redmercw (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear editors --

In response to expressed concerns about a possible COI related to the draft page Draft:W. Patrick Murphy, I have disclosed my personal and professional relationship to W. Patrick Murphy at User:Redmercw, per Wiki´s COI policy. Can someone please review the disclosure to ensure that my disclosure is acceptable and inform me if there are any further concerns? Many thanks, redmercw.


 * Thank you for your declaration. I said before that the backlog was about 16 weeks. I'm afraid that figure was out of date then and has slipped further since, it is now 19 weeks. If that holds steady, you can expect Draft:W. Patrick Murphy, most recently submitted on 2 July, to be reviewed by 12 November. Reviewers are volunteers, and are not required to review the oldest drafts first, so it might happen earlier, but there isn't any way you can expedite it. How long the draft has been worked on doesn't influence when it is reviewed. Reviewers don't like the large backlog any more than you do, but it's a function of the supply of volunteers and the demand for their expertise. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

13:33:52, 22 July 2019 review of submission by Ras2066
Good Morning! This is not intended to be a press release or advertisement for Fabrizio Michelassi. I have removed section under career where it speaks to his 'influence on the Department of Surgery at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine' could this now be approved? I truly believe this fits the criteria for an encyclopedia article. I have published this newly revised version for your review.

Looking forward to hearing back from you!


 * The whole article has phrasing issues, but there's also things like 50% of the article is the "Awards, honors and professional activities" section. It reads as an introduction to someone on stage. If you do want to try and turn into an article yourself, rather than following DGG's advice, I'd suggest reading several other professor articles. Then remember, neutral language, don't break the 4th wall, and DUE - weight content to the amount of the reliable/independent coverage it has. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

14:16:17, 22 July 2019 review of draft by Sarahamzeh
Hello, how will I be able to be neutral while stating the organization's self-proclaimed purpose? I attempted to clearly portray it as a direct quote but I dont know if that fits into the tonality required Sarahamzeh (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Reviewers try to be welcoming and encouraging to new editors. In this case, even though it may be discouraging, it would be kinder to let you know that the Consortium for Sustainable Urbanization (CSU) is not notable (does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria), so no amount of editing will result in the draft being accepted.


 * The draft cites CSU and announcements of events organized by CSU. These are not independent sources. Only independent sources can demonstrate notability. Based on my own searches, there are no independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the organization.


 * I hope you can use what you've learned by working on this draft to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia in other ways. You might be interested in WikiProject Urban studies and planning. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

15:44:11, 22 July 2019 review of submission by Carsuki
screenfetch, a similar program, has an article. what makes this less notable?

Carsuki (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Your draft doesn't have sufficient sources to prove notability. Generally I'd suggest (and still would) reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in this specific instance I've renominated screenfetch for AfD, as I don't feel it meets NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

15:55:22, 22 July 2019 review of submission by MarcoLaudato
Dear reviewers,

Let me thank you for your suggestions to improve this article. I have applied the amendments suggested in your comments.

In particular, Dan arndt suggested to add independent references in the bibliography. In this new version the main reference is the official web site of L'Aquila University. Moreover, I have added also the Scopus web page of the M&MoCS journal as independent reference.

As for the comment by Theroadislong, in order to stay within the Wikipedia guidelines, I have followed the article structure of the Wikipedia page of the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of complex systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Institute_for_the_Physics_of_Complex_Systems). Therefore, since that article has been accepted by the Wikipedia community, this article should work too. Moreover, during the writing I have avoided to use any useless adjective, as suggested by the Wikipedia guidelines.

I hope that this new version satisfies the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Kind regards, Marco MarcoLaudato (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 16:06:54, 22 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Vgreco15
My article was said to be "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia", I would like some clarification to better resolve this. I used the Spartan wiki page as a reference for mine. City Challenge Race growing company that is very popular in my town and surrounding areas. As I've done me research, they are also growing across the coast and have events in a lot of major cities. I feel they are more than sufficiently notable for an article. Vgreco15 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Vgreco15 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

18:03:10, 22 July 2019 review of draft by BriteBlonde1
BriteBlonde1 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have followed each and every step, attributing each source and yet we are still not published. I need clarification and no doubt direction, since this submission is far better written and sourced than many that are publisehd.
 * Your draft Draft:Marilyn Frances Szabo has no inline citations, please read WP:REFB for help. Long unsourced lists of exhibitions and publications do not contribute to notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

19:07:07, 22 July 2019 review of draft by Brendanm2129
I need help. I made an article with a good amount of primary and secondary sources. However, people say it isn’t enough. But many other articles have way less sources than the article I created. Any suggestions?

Brendanm2129 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - it's the quality of the sources that are the issue. Primary sources don't add anything to notability (which rules out social media, youtube etc), and secondary sources have to be reliable/independent, with a specific revocation of Medium. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

20:17:46, 22 July 2019 review of draft by D E Towers
My article does not begin with any Submission parameters and I am wondering whether this is important if it is to be reviewed.

D E Towers (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The large mustard yellow box on the draft (in this case at the bottom, it doesn't really matter where) tells us that things are OK. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 8 weeks. The current backlog is around 19 weeks. You may continue improving your submission while you wait. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)