Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 12

= November 12 =

02:18:15, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Pavlko
Hello, I am trying to create an article about a philosophical and physics idea about Time, proposed by myself. I only have a single external reference which is a Research Gate link where I proposed originally the idea. My draft was rejected for this reason. Obviously the idea is not known at all, so I cannot add another external reference for it. My main goal is the possibility of discussion of this idea and the draft is written in this mood. Thanks, Pablo Bounous. Pavlko (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia is not the place to discuss an idea you've come up with. You're welcome to do that elsewhere, but an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, it summarizes what secondary sources have written about a topic. After reliable secondary sources (such as books by professors of philosophy published by academic presses) discuss your idea, then it could be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

07:32:39, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Tvega52
Reviewers continuously are declining the my submitted draft for "advertising" type words but have not stated what they mean by this. I have stated the facts of the company objectively from 3rd party sources and have removed all bias. Tvega52 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tried to salvage it, but on reflection you're best blanking it and focusing on Draft:OANDA instead which is in a better state. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

08:27:33, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Juanestebanp94
Is it possible to have someone checking again my article please? i've made some changes and want to know if it's ready to go public.

Thank you in advance.

Juanestebanp94 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read the draft and the references you've provided. Overall, the draft has the feel of an advertisement. Looking at the references, these are either based on company news releases or are mere mentions of the software. There is no in-depth, independent coverage of the company. Most of what is written is presumably from your personal knowledge of the company and its products, whereas for a Wikipedia article readers can only tell if what has been written is factual if they can verify it using the references you provide. You would need to find references that confirm most of what you've written. All in all, the company doesn't appear to be a suitable topic for inclusion in an enyclopedia right now. If you're looking for new publicity for the company, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

14:43:09, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Cb912
Hi! This draft has been recently updated to reflect some changes since it was last submitted. I had requested advice earlier this year from the help desk. I see that a reviewer scope_creep Talk ' left comments confirming notability in April. "He seems to pass WP:SIGCOV that is the policy that ensures that the person is widely known."

Can this be re-reviewed? Thank you! Cb912 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have put it back in the review queue for you. Please be patient, the review queue is rather long at the moment. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

17:36:25, 12 November 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19
Hello, Please could the request to publish a page for Reuven Wimmer be reviewed. This was submitted as Reuven Wimmer currently has a Wikipedia page in Hebrew and wanted to do an English one as well. Is there a way we can do this? Thank you.

RWNYC19 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not unless you can provide some reliable independent sources and who is "we", Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

19:13:35, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Winston16
I have now deleted the source that you were unhappy with from the article Winston16 (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , The issue here is that the subject is likely not notable to be included on WIkipedia. Notability is how we decide who can have an article. Usually that requires at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject signifigant coverage. Think newspapers, media, books, etc. Your sources do not currently meet that standard. If such sources cannot be found, the subject cannot have an article. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

19:14:09, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Claudette De Ville
Dear Madam, dear Sir, I am very disappointed my draft about the work and the life of the artist Pol Fraiture has not been accepted. I am the widow of Pol Fraiture and I wrote the text. It is not a translation and all my sources are reliable. Both what I wrote and the sources can be checked. I first created an article in French on Wikipedia, and it was checked and published. The English page I have submitted is a different text I wrote. I do not see my draft anymore and I do hope it has not been deleted! It took me so long to create it and to add the sources references. Thanks in advance for your answer, Kind regards, Claudette De Ville Claudette De Ville (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft was moved from User:De ville claudette/sandbox to Draft:Pol Fraiture. It's still there. You can see the page's history. It has not been reviewed yet, it is in the queue and someone will get to it eventually. Since you have conflict of interest, you need to WP:DISCLOSE it. I am however going to say that the draft will very likely be initially declined because it is not written in a neutral encyclopedic tone. For example, stuff like "passionate artist dedicated to his art" is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I should also warn you that it will be very difficult to review, because all the sources are offline and not in English. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

22:48:09, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Ubiquitouslarry
The reviewer states that the references in the article “don't show notability at a sufficient level for a biography on Wikipedia. They show the details of Guo's business dealings but don't demonstrate notability as per the guidelines.”

Guo is not just a business woman. She is also a computer engineer. Guo built the software that powers Scale AI.

If Scale AI was her only claim to fame, I would have created a company article and mentioned her involvement.

But Guo is also a Thiel Fellow, worked at Quorum, was the first female engineer at Snapchat, and has built a slew of popular apps. She currently uses the money she earned with Scale AI to invest in the projects of other engineers. None of the preceeding is integral to Scale AI.

I am trying to get my head around what criteria for notability that I missed.

Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to disagree with the reviewer here. The . Nordic Business Forum.  story about the fellowship, and the Marie Claire story alone are looking like pretty good evidence of notability to me. The basic criterion here is the General Notability guideline which says Sources here seem to be largely reliable, and many of them are independent, so the issue is coverage. Many of the cited sources include only brief mentions of Guo, but that should be ok, and may even be required to verify facts relevant to her, but there need to be several sources that deliver significant coverage}}. Just how much coverage is significant is something of a judgement call, but a single mention is pretty much never significant coverage. Several paragraphs or more devoted to the subject in a given story is much more likely to be judged to be significant.  I have not checked over all the sources in the article yet. If ther are, or could be added, one or two more with coverage comparable to the two I mentioned above, that might be sufficient., would you care to respond to my views as the reviewer who declined this? , please see [[Help:Citation merging for the bundled citation format used in this draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I have used merged citations before, but had never seen it done that way before. Thanks for letting me know, I rescind any criticism of the ref style. I still think the investments section is unencyclopedic and probably promotional however. But I do agree with DES, she seems like she might be notable, but an indepth look at sources is needed. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I merged the citations to avoid the visually disruptive citation-trains at the end of sentences., thank you for the citation-merging article. It prompted me to remove the first bullet from each list which makes the reference listings less disconcerting. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the investments section with the descriptions are a bit overkill. My intention was to show she has invested in companies she understands as opposed to unrelated companies that simply make money. Her education led to her career choices which led her to to her investment choices. None of the companies have Wikipedia entries, so I added in short definitions for reference. Maybe a short listing of names and links to their respective sites would be enough.Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)