Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 December 22

= December 22 =

Saab 401 article and the Einar Bergström article, fame factor issue?
I have the artikle sent to Draft, as missing refrences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saab_401#The_Semi-Hovercraft_project_in_Sweden_1957-1982

Problem:
 * "Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: There are no references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"
 * "There are no references at all." - To me it is a unspecified complaint, and as such there is nothing I can do??
 * My question is what shall I do, to this task?

Fame factor?
I have another article with the same problems (I have written and published many with no issues, so far) and it is claimed to lack fame. Mainly as not having fame enough for the English Wikipedia, not being published enough (but OK in Swedish and German Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Einar_Bergstr%C3%B6m

By fame means being in who-is-who publications is quite all right, as for Einar Bergströms colleges that became bosses and as such published there. They were in a at the time military secret development project of the Saab 35 Draken and as such only their boss Erik Bratt was actually in the press being published. By Saab AB, Bratt was the leader of the construction team of Bertil Dillner, Hermann Behrbohm, Einar Bergström and Olof Ljungström. The project included as key parts development of supersonic flight and the delta wing concept.

In Sweden the project of Saab 35 Draken is a national icon and Erik Bratt was the Swedish eq to Willy Messerschmitt in Nazi Germany or Kelly Johnson (engineer) in the US, and their projects were icons and signification aviation history. I guess that is why there is no issue there, and in the US The Saab 35 Draken is no icon? The icon-status and the dream-team factor of the experts of Bratt is not the same in the US? I can accept that, and try to approach Bergströms English article in a different angle about that. Military secrets means in fact non-existence in a way, how important the tasks ever was? OK for that part it is an acceptable failure and have to rest getting it published in Swedish and German Wikipedia.

But in the second civilian part of Bergströms article there are the "pubished in independent sources"
The latter part of the Bergström article is civilian and as such being published and quite known. (I can accept the initial failure, removing the entire part with work for the military secret aviation development important parts of the mans life.) Military secret means non-existence, later when secrecy is lifted documentation is since long to a large extent destroyed.

But the second half is civilian and being published and documented, having a fame factor being front page on the most important Tech news weekly magazine in Sweden, twice and a full page in a daily newspaper? I think that is more fame factor than being in who-is-who?

But the article about the Saab 401, is documented referenced?
What is asked for?
 * The National sea tech museum has references to the Saab-project (Saab 401 exists)
 * There is a picture with the genuine military staff visitors (Saab 401 exists)
 * It had the same purpose as British and US similar projects, and it failed, navy got obviously less interested paying, project dropped
 * The project continued as an open civilian project, being published.

To me it as the required references for a English Wikipedia project.

As we see if we read the published magazine articles (by the largest weekly tech news magazine in Sweden Ny Teknik and its forerunner Teknisk Tidskrift, You can read them here used in the Swedish and German Wikipedia (but as scanned magazine articles have no values in the English Wikipedia as references, only the dry references to the paper issues have, English Wikipedia has a different interpret than Swedish and German Wikipedia here): Yes you can click on the articles and read them.

Then there are one of the major national daily newspapers having a full page about the FFA Hovercraft project, but the editor today (the man with the rights don't like Wikipedia so we can't publish the scanned article) But it is a reference describing what this Saab 401 article describes as well. I can't see what is missing.

Problem:
 * "Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: There are no references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"

"There are no references at all" is absolutly unspecific on what is missing references, what refernces are considered weak etc. I have been working with computers and error reports like that are impossible to meet.
 * My question is what shall I do, to this task?

--Zzalpha (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Zzalpha (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

04:11:36, 22 December 2020 review of submission by 108.52.91.53
108.52.91.53 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

i'm inquiring to see if this draft can be permanently deleted.
 * It will be automatically marked for deletion after six months of inactivity. The original author can request deletion by marking the draft with (as you see it here, not in the edit window where I have added coding to suppress its function on this page)  If you are the original author, log in first. Be advised that there is no such thing as a 'permanent deletion'; deleted pages remain visible to administrators if they look for it, and there are websites that archive Wikipedia pages. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

04:38:04, 22 December 2020 review of draft by VQuetzal
Hello, I apologize for the annoyance that these submissions might have caused. They were not submitted in order to game the system or hope for a speedy review. The reason for multiple submissions is that this wiki is about a basketball season that is ongoing, so I have been updating it every few days to input scores and other news as it comes in. That is how I ran the other wiki pages for prior seasons (i.e. 18-19 and 19-20). Should I hold off on making any updates for the time being? I was under the impression that I was simply updating the page rather than notifying the reviewers. - VQuetzal

VQuetzal (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the confusion is that another editor created an article on the same topic at around the same time. It was much less well-developed than the one you are working on.  It was moved back to "Draft" space.  .  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  05:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

05:01:27, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Wikibrother75
updated references / reliable sources (News). Wikibrother75 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * for your notice. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

11:30:57, 22 December 2020 review of submission by EslingWill
Is that it? Rejected on the say so of one person? Is that how wikipedia works? EslingWill (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Committees do not review drafts, so yes. It is possible to resubmit a draft, but in this case, your draft was deleted as a copyright violation and as promotional.  Content posted to Wikipedia must be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia, which allows reuse of content for any purpose(even commercial) with attribution(which as a writer you may not wish to do).  Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves.  Please review the autobiography policy.  In order for you to be successful in writing a draft about yourself, you need to in essence forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources have chosen to write about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional.
 * If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media, a personal website, or other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

11:38:38, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Sheri Qadri
I want to show my company in Wikipedia and my competitors have pages in Wikipedia. My company should be remembered by generation. This is the only platform we can save our history.I will be very great if you accept my Page. Sheri Qadri (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no interest in helping you increase your company's exposure, in documenting what the company considers to be its history, or in otherwise helping you tell the world about your company. That your competitors might merit articles does not automatically mean your company does, see Other Stuff Exists.  Your company would only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources choosing on their own to write about it(no press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions), showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.  Because of this, not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field, it depends on the sources.
 * Furthermore, as a company representative you have a severe conflict of interest; you also are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to formally comply with the paid editing policy. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use your own website, social media, or alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the only platform we can save our history - "archiving" web sites like archive.org are much better suited for that task. I recommend doing what many companies do:  Create a web site for the company.  Once it is up and running, go to archive.org and follow the steps to record a "snapshot in time" of each of the important pages on your web site.  You could also consider making physical copies of "important to people outside your company" company documents and arranging for libraries or other "physical media" archiving institutions to hold copies.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  15:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

12:08:06, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Gauravsingh9934
Gauravsingh9934 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. To do so, please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

13:45:01, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Anksays
Anksays (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

19:46:18, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Paul.jonah.paul
Draft: Shift4 Payments is an unusual situation and I would like help. After this company went public, there was a great deal of new press from mainstream sources. But the draft had been previously rejected. An editor here said a multi-editor discussion should be started on whether it met notability. So I started an RfC, which is now resolved Draft talk:Shift4 Payments Three of the three users said the article was now notable. The admin who determined consensus said it should be resubmitted on AfC, and added a comment to that effect on top of the page and allowed it back on the queue, but given there is still a rejection template atop the draft, I doubt anyone will even read the comment. On the Talk page for the admin explained: “As for my closure itself, my thought process there was that editors seemed to approve of it on notability grounds but had some lingering concerns on COI/neutrality grounds. Thus, it's ok to resubmit it, but an AfC reviewer could object to perceived neutrality issues (at which point you could revise and resubmit)” User talk:Rosguill. I have since made extensive edits to the article to remove the sourcing and language that editors in the RFC found questionable. It would be great if someone could do a review as this article has been stuck in various discussions since August. Thanks Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)