Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 April 1

= April 1 =

00:05:14, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Mrcwee
Hey! Just had a submission for a studio album (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Grae_(album)) rejected, and wondering how I could improve it—particularly when it comes to sources.

Mrcwee (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Links were provided in the decline message, are you not able to see those? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Mrcwee, I'll go through your sources and hopefully this can help you understand. I'd recommend you read Wikipedia's guidelines on this, but in short, an article must be supported by multiple independent, reliable (some kind of fact checking) sources that mention the subject significantly (not just trivial coverage). could indicate notability, but seems to just be an announcement of the album's existence, nothing actually about it (so could be strewn as WP:ROUTINE.  doesn't mention the album. Twitter isn't a reliable source. Generally, interviews aren't seen as independent, but  actually seems to have a lot of commentary, which is good. This article definitely has nontrivial coverage as well. So you're almost there for sources! I would add probably two more just to solidify the notability of the subject. Currently what I'm more worried about in your article is your language that states opinions as facts. For instance: " a wide range of collaborators." Who's to say there is a wide range of collaborators? Just state a fact here and let the reader interpret that as a "wide range" if they really want to. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

05:12:08, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Mtsecurity
Mtsecurity (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 06:38:55, 1 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Scherbakov G
Dear Sir or Madam, I have recently submitted an English version of my Russian article (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F) but was rejected on this basis: "Currently article is promoting author's research. Some independent sources from the person that developed it would demonstrate notability." Could you please help me in my situation as I have not figured out yet how the publishing works on Wiki ?

Yours sincerely, G. Scherbakov

Scherbakov G (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Scherbakov G, different Wikipedias have different standards of notability, so if something exists on the Russian Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily mean it can on the English one. I would encourage you to read WP:GNG. Your sources must be independent (currently most of your sources are from the author of the method himself), reliable, and mention the subject of the article significantly (so not just trivial coverage). Sam-2727 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

07:29:35, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Agastya99
considering the reviewer's comment, I have changed the article and made it neutral. If have any suggestions please help me with how to write a company profile of an agency.

Agastya99 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to be acceptable, unfortunately. Please understand that there is not a single "profile" on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia has articles.  Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability.  In this case, the company must meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.  Because of this, not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even in the same field.
 * I assume that you work for this company. You must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

08:34:21, 1 April 2020 review of draft by EB-lgbtq
Best,

I'm reaching out to you because the page ( Draft: Rémy Bonny )I created is being rejected for a third time. While the issues that were mentioned during the first two times were resolved (thanks to the generous help of other more experienced editors and reviewers), this time a totally other reason is being provided by the reviewer. The following reason is given: "This reads like a press release, and it fails to show notability, since almost all the references are his own work, or notes about his appearances".

This is really frustrating because this was not the reason the first two reviewers gave, so it is really inconsistent and it is not true as well. Some are references to his own work, to prove that he also wrote things himself. But the big majority of references are to articles from major news outlets like NBC, Le Monde, Bild, The Advocate and so on.

Hopefully this can be resolved soon-ish.

Best, Evert--EB-lgbtq (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) EB-lgbtq (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

11:39:36, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Cimfalab
I have added external links (GitHub and OWASP) mentioning DeepScan for the notability. As of GitHub especially, DeepScan is a member of its Marketplace and now a partner of its Student pack recently. I know GitHub is the largest developer community/platform so to being with GitHub is an evidence of notability.

Also, when I search 'javascript static analysis' or 'javascript code quality' in Google, DeepScan.io is shown up at the very first rank.

Cimfalab (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * These are not sources usable for notability. They are both not independent and definitely not significant coverage. OWASP text seems to come from GitHub. In fact, both these links are discouraged by WP:ELNO as they are nothing but download/purchase links with no encyclopedic content. One official link per WP:ELOFFICIAL is sufficient. Search hits per WP:GHITS are not necessaries any indication of notability as defined on Wikipedia. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

12:00:43, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Dmayz
I created the Hana Rado article as a translation from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I am not sure what exactly in the text constitute as a press release and not a valid article. Will be happy to make the necessary adjustments, but would appreciate to know what should be changed. Dmayz (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content. To merit an article on the English Wikipedia, a person must be shown with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article for more information. Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is its own separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one language version is not necessarily acceptable on another. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

12:33:51, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
Exiledstranger (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC) delete this page


 * Exiledstranger, already deleted as a copyright violation. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

14:43:33, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Renwang101
Hello I am new to Wiki and I did try few times, looks like it is getting worse, is there a way to ask someone to help, to publish the article? Ren Renwang101 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Renwang101, I'd recommend you edit articles already created. Creating a new article is a very challenging task on Wikipedia. I'll summarize some of them here. First off, all statements made in the article (or at least the ones that aren't obvious) should be verifiable. Currently you have entire paragraphs without citations. Second, your article must be written in a neutral tone. This means that statements like "made very little progress until recently" shouldn't be included as they state opinions as fact. This also means that rhetorical questions like "What happened to the vehicles that have not been manufactured and are still in the design stage?" shouldn't be asked either as they are meant to lean towards a certain opinionated view. Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

16:13:26, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach
Eeberbach (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I get a real help from competent Wikipedia editors, e.g., the anonymous editor who added Example section to our draft? The submission did not have luck with the last two editors, where it looked that the draft was close to publishing. Please re-review the draft on evolutionary automata by specialists from computer science or evolutionary computation. Thanks for your help.

Eeberbach (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I already suggested you ask for help here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eeberbach, also some issues are more universal than would require specialist attention. For instance "one of the most compelling themes of modern science" is certainly not written in an encyclopedic tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A strong case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I'm afraid.   Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsubstantieted accusation - you are rather a strong case of what you claim from superior and anonymous position of the editor. I needed constructive comments not accusations. In such a way it is possible to silence anybody instead to be constructive. By the way, I do not know what is wrong with "one of the most compelling themes of modern science" sentence if it used in many serious publications (see, e.g., Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Computation), and, additionally, is true. Evolutionary computation, together with (Deep) Neural networks are "one of the most compelling themes of modern science".

Eeberbach (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

18:34:16, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Curtbyers
I am wondering if a new Coronoavirus-19 response-relevant page could have expedited review.

I am an independent behavioral health and public policy researcher and consultant who has been tracking community of faith responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. I came across this organization which had just put on an online COVID-19 summit addressed by the Surgeon General "attendended by 4000 pastors. Its leadership and its product appear to be as legit and impressive--and generally far more so--than anything else I have found to date. But I was surprised and disappointed to discover their lack of Wikipedia page, apparently because they actually follow Wikipedia policy about not putting up one oneself. Their mission till now has not needed a high profile to execute well and they have not sought or caught the attention of a lot of press coverage.

For the first time the positive impact of their best work is completely dependent on the speed and scale of their superb COVID-19 church response manual being known and accessed by the thousands of churches and other commmunities of faith. Thanks.

Curtbyers (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Curtbyers, if the page really is important, then other Wikipedia editors will pick it up. I would suggest you contact WP:Wikiproject COVID-19. They can help determine if the project really is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article (and can help you improve it). As a starter for improving your article, I would look at examples of articles on Wikipedia. Your article currently as it stands doesn't really have the format of a Wikipedia article. Also, it seems to be written like an advertisement (one of the reasons it was declined recently). Articles should be written in a neutral tone, giving all mainstream perspectives equal weight. Another facet of this neutral tone is that opinions shouldn't be stated as fact. You have a lot of broad statements like "Research outcomes inform development of training that equips professional and volunteer humanitarian disaster responders and relief workers to care for the spiritual and mental health of disaster survivors with effective, evidence-based practice-informed resources and strategies," that aren't opinions per-se, but could be more specific and are likely generalizations. Finally, you need to provide sources that qualify the article under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That is, you must have multiple sources independent of the organization that are reliable and cover the organization significantly (so not just trivial coverage). Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

21:28:52, 1 April 2020 review of submission by D.Kerl
Why is it "blatant" adversary? Its an article about a relatively new product. Like about BMX or Sig Sauer, their coming flagship just mentioned short. The article could be better filled, yes but that is in future planning. If a consumer can't create a wiki page of a product he likes wiki is obsolete in 2020! D.Kerl (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * D.Kerl, if "better filling" is "planned for the future," why not just do it now? The advertising is stating opinion as fact:"Distinguishes the VapCap from all it's competitors of whom not one has an feature like this." In quotes like these, surely not everybody would agree that this distinguishes them from "competitors." Yet it is stated as if everybody does. Also, the article has no citations. I would recommend you read WP:Notability for more information on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

21:36:42, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Saumyagupta123
Hi, I was trying to add the article for the actor Kinshuk Sen. I believe it has been made into a redirect to his father's page. How do I break the link?

Saumyagupta123 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Saumyagupta123, if your article is accepted, the reviewer will take care of this for you. In the meantime, I would make sure your article establishes that the actor meets the notability guidelines (so multiple independent, reliable sources that cover the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial coverage)). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)