Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 August 8

= August 8 =

03:35:52, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Joeseph Sparrow
I added some more content and made a few edits. I'm not sure if this submission meets the standards yet. It has an international component now that it did not before. Joeseph Sparrow (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid that no amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

09:18:23, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Mfaakeef
this company is one of the best high quality umbrella manufacture in Srilanka this article should be verify in wikipedia and published.pls let us know if any error i need this article to be published check the full details diamondrainwear 09:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft has been rejected it has no sources so no evidence that they are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

09:28:03, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Aniket vaghani
Aniket vaghani (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please read WP:NOTSOCIAL which is why your submission has been rejected Fiddle   Faddle  09:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

09:47:25, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Mfaakeef
i request for review my article should be verify list in wikipedia i need a help to be published in wikipedia 100% can you help me to get verify thank you diamondrainwear 09:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfaakeef (talk • contribs)
 * Declined and rejected multiple times here Draft:Diamond Rainwear and here User:Mfaakeef/Sandbox and here User:Mfaakeef/sandbox/Diamond Rainwear Pvt Ltd time to stop. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ This editor is asking everywhere possible. I have left a notice about Paid Edoting on their talk page. The draft is Draft:Diamond Rainwear Pvt Ltd and has failed review in one form or another  Fiddle   Faddle  09:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

10:45:03, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Aman AP patel
Aman AP patel (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you BLANK the content of this draft it will be deleted on your behalf Fiddle   Faddle  10:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

review of submission by Aman Patel
I don't know about copyright claim so by mistake i post this content. Sorry for this.

Aman AP patel (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , If you BLANK the content of this draft it will be deleted on your behalf Fiddle   Faddle  10:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

11:37:32, 8 August 2020 review of submission by 117.234.231.155
117.234.231.155 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft is about a person who does not pass our notability guidelines.
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

13:13:49, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Happy2Help619
Happy2Help619 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC) DRAFT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_International_University_(USIU)

My page for the not-for-profit university called United States International was denied, the reason given was the page already exists. However, the page that exists is for Alliant International University which was the merger of 2 universities USIU And CSPP. CSPP has its own Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, as of 2015 Alliant International as become a For-Profit-Corporation - So I do not know how or why you would not have a page for the previous Not-For-Profit University, especially when its counterpart CSPP has one.

My Draft: USIU Not-For-Profit University (now defunct) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_International_University_(USIU)

The Page that 'Already Exists': Alliant International University - For Profit Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliant_International_University

CSPP the other school involved in the merged with USIU to form Alliant International Still has its own page: CSPP - Not-For-Profit (Now Defunct School) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_School_of_Professional_Psychology

Help?


 * Is it part of Alliant International University? I have lost track Fiddle   Faddle  13:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No USIU is defunct.

Alliant International was the merger of two non-profits: USIU and CSPP.

CSPP still has its own wiki page. Which begs the question shouldn't USIU also have its own?

USIU had a storied existence producing NFL and NHL players, actors, politicians and 1-2 world renowned professors - as Universities do (which I tried to capture in my Draft for the page)

As of 2015, Alliant International became a For-Profit-Corporation - Which is more reason why USIU needs to be represented by its own page, with its history documented and legacy preserved.

If this is not the case can you let me know why CSPP can have its own page and not USIU? When like USIU it was the other entity to form the new venture (which is now a business).

Thanks

Also, apologizes if I have not posted questions or challenges in the correct format, this is the first page I have ever tried to publish, and this UI is a little intense at first. I hope others can contribute who know more, I just feel this page needs to exist.

Also, I think this is just another compelling argument that USIU was its own prestigious (now defunct) University that should have its own page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_International_University_alumni

Shouldn't that page be on a main USIU page, or link to it?

Thanks, @ Faddle Fiddle


 * I womder, please will you spoonfeed us, ideally using short bullets. I know you just told us, but I lost track. What do you wish to happen, and why? Fiddle   Faddle  15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't blur what you want to happen with supplementary questions Fiddle   Faddle  15:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Please understand that two things you stress, (1) that USIU was non-profit whereas Alliant International University is for-profit, and (2) that the California School of Professional Psychology, the other university that merged with USIU to form Alliant International University, is the topic of a stand alone article, are completely irrelevant to how Wikipedia decides whether USIU should be handled as a stand alone article. You may feel passionately that those factors should be considered, but experienced Wikipedians will ignore those arguments.


 * A stand alone article is impossible if the subject is not notable. Notability is usually easy to prove for universities. The draft's citations of The San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego Reader, Los Angeles Times, and Sports Illustrated should be sufficient to demonstrate notability. If there's any doubt, other sources include:
 * Being notable, however, is not a guarantee that a topic will be handled as a stand alone article. Multiple related notable topics are often grouped into a single article. See Whether to create stand alone pages for an explanation of how the community decides where to treat a topic.
 * Being notable, however, is not a guarantee that a topic will be handled as a stand alone article. Multiple related notable topics are often grouped into a single article. See Whether to create stand alone pages for an explanation of how the community decides where to treat a topic.
 * Being notable, however, is not a guarantee that a topic will be handled as a stand alone article. Multiple related notable topics are often grouped into a single article. See Whether to create stand alone pages for an explanation of how the community decides where to treat a topic.
 * Being notable, however, is not a guarantee that a topic will be handled as a stand alone article. Multiple related notable topics are often grouped into a single article. See Whether to create stand alone pages for an explanation of how the community decides where to treat a topic.
 * Being notable, however, is not a guarantee that a topic will be handled as a stand alone article. Multiple related notable topics are often grouped into a single article. See Whether to create stand alone pages for an explanation of how the community decides where to treat a topic.


 * How could you change United States International University (which for 15 years has been a redirect from a former name to Alliant International University) into a stand alone article? Submitting Draft:United States International University (USIU) for review by Articles for Creation is not the way to do it. Reviewers will just tell you that the topic is already part of the Alliant article.


 * So expand Alliant International University with additional information about USIU. See College and university article guideline for guidance on what to cover and how to structure it, and featured articles about universities for examples. At some point the amount of information about USIU will become unwieldy within the context of Alliant. Then you may suggest on Talk:Alliant International University that the detailed information about USIU that is not needed to provide context for Alliant be spun out into a stand alone article. Give people a week or so to consider the idea and comment on it. Most likely no one will object.


 * You may be able to get assistance from WikiProject San Diego, WikiProject Higher education, and Meetup/San Diego. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Yes I wasn't sure if this was the correct way to get a referee for a challenge - Thanks for explaining that. I have never posted or attempted to post and I just want to get this started. I think its great advice to use the wikiprojects for help I had no idea they existed (or what I am doing as you can tell). Thanks again.

FYI - The relevance of this is now in pandemic times, I have been laid off as a consultant (with not much hope for the near future) and for the first time recruiters have looked up where I graduated from and responded with 'why did you go to a for-profit school' - which is definitely not what I or the thousands of other Alumni attended.

Thanks again Worldbruce  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy2Help619 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy2Help619 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

13:18:13, 8 August 2020 review of submission by Cavuser
The review explained that the artist Phroggy isn't notable enough. There are articles on Wikipedia which are less informative, contain less information and are on topics which can be viewed as being irrelevant or unnecessary in comparison to the information provided about the history behind the popular indie artist, Phroggy. All sources were also valid and are evidence that the artist is not fictional. He currently has 84 monthly listeners on Spotify after being active for under 2 days.

Cavuser (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , No article elsewhere on Wikipedia ever sets a precedent for any other. Each stands or falls on its own merits.
 * The referencing is of no use in anything except verifying facts. Your article does not assert notability and the references do not verify it, he needs to pass WP:NMUSIC
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

14:19:43, 8 August 2020 review of draft by MichaelHMath
I have created a new and very viable math method. That I named it is not a significant portion of the concept, the entirety is that it is of extreme value to both mathematics and computer science. Literally I have broken an accepted rule of thumb that existed for more than 400 years. I would like to have Combary reinstated. COVID-19 means getting media time is difficult at best and potentially dangerous to pursue with extreme diligence.

MichaelHMath (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft is original research by you Michael Harrington. Wikipedia is not the place to announce new numeral systems or new anything in fact. Wikipedia only reports on what reliable, independent sources have already said about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

14:31:49, 8 August 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:4B41:D040:11E1:4517:A49A:A6EB
2600:1700:4B41:D040:11E1:4517:A49A:A6EB (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you like to achieve? My telepathy interface is broken. Please use words Fiddle   Faddle  15:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, I note that it is highly unlikely that your draft will get accepted unless it has Wp:RS. Eternal Shadow   Talk  21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)