Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 19

= July 19 =

05:56:57, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Pradip92
Pradip Chakraborty 05:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pure promotional material. You mayn't use Wikipedia for self promotion Fiddle   Faddle  07:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

07:26:20, 19 July 2020 review of draft by Ben Airdunat
I submitted this page a year ago, but did not hear about its rejection until a couple of days ago. Rejected because it is "promotional" and sources are not adequate. I have removed a few lines, but am not sure what else to do. Perhaps an important one is the quote that Pleasant DeSpain is “a pioneer of the American renaissance in storytelling” which is only supported by the influential person who said it, and nothing in print is referenced. I have edited some wiki pages, but this the first I have ever created from scratch. Perhaps I just need someone to highlight the lines that need altering. I modeled it after other storyteller pages that already exist on Wiki. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!!! [FYI: I have already deleted these three lines from the originally rejected page: 1) DeSpain also creates original stories for major educational publishers such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2) External reference: * Pleasant DeSpain Bio at August House Publishers; and 3) External reference: * Single Post Interview with Pleasant DeSpain] Ben Airdunat (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ben Airdunat (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it has been pushed back to you for further wok, not rejected. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
 * The reviewer is highly experienced. They will be able to pinpoint what they pushed the draft back to you for Fiddle   Faddle  21:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The reviewer is highly experienced. They will be able to pinpoint what they pushed the draft back to you for Fiddle   Faddle  21:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

08:26:13, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Jorbss
Jorbss (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It was rejected because it has no independent reliable sources to support its content.  A potential Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  Please see Your First Article for more information, you may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

13:35:19, 19 July 2020 review of submission by 202.83.43.240
202.83.43.240 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking a question is likely to generate an answer. Please ask that question. We cannot do more than guess otherwise Fiddle   Faddle  20:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

17:09:15, 19 July 2020 review of submission by DMCojo
I do not understand why my article was declined. I put many hours into its creation, researching it in detail. The response said it was not sufficient information, but there is a lot there. Please advise...I don't want all my hard work to be wasted. DMCojo (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , your hard work is palpable. There is only one way to prevent it from being wasted, which is to demonstrate that the topic is not simply interesting, but is notable. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
 * The experienced reviewer has pushed it back to you with a very clear rationale in the big pink box A short version os encapsulated in WP:42 Fiddle   Faddle  20:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The experienced reviewer has pushed it back to you with a very clear rationale in the big pink box A short version os encapsulated in WP:42 Fiddle   Faddle  20:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

18:48:47, 19 July 2020 review of draft by Mr.532nm
I do understand that some of the information is already available at different pages, yet I do not see why you would decline the draft. I added a lot of information specific to the topic with a lot of inside views and I would like to improve the article over time, which I haven't done until now, because I wanted it to be published first, before putting in more effort. I added pictures of Publications that I am sure no other page has and if you want to look for general information about for example a K-Beta Line in the internet you need to read a book or scientific paper. I wanted to make it easer for people to get really specific information while giving an introduction general enough for people not to jump between pages. What, in your opinion, would need to be changed to create this Page. I mean, there a lot of pages that only have like three sentences. If that is more what you guys like here I could make 20 of those which is, at least in my mind, a stupid idea. Anyway, thanks for your reply in advance and stay healthy! Mr.532nm (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , It seems to me that both you and the reviewer are correct. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
 * Instead of facing a deletion procedure it is likely, but not certain, that your draft, if accepted, would be subject to a merge process. What you need to determine is whether it ought to stand alone, or whether it ought to be merged into the article(s) the reviewer suggests.
 * Each of these courses of action is valid. In no case is the information lost.
 * Every editor at some point refers to other articles as examples, Please don't. We have a good many very poor articles, all of which need improvement, some of which should go. Fiddle   Faddle  20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply. I had some time yesterday and added more detailed information about the topic. For myself, I'd prefer a stand alone article,
 * but that is mainly because I find it extremely hard to add information to an article that is already quite long but only scratches a few main topics.
 * The current mindset of the creator(s) is hard to retrace and you constantly have to triple check not to mention something twice.
 * In this case, the first suggestion of merging with Emission Spectrum(cant get the links to work .-.) is, at least in my opinion completely wrong.
 * The only article this would fit in is "X-ray Spectroscopy". Yet, I guess it would be best to keep that article for general information about the topic
 * and then have stand alone articles for different methods of measurements, as long as they are accurately descripted.
 * I resubmitted the edited version and wait how it plays out this time, but if you could give me some general requirements for an article to not be "mergable"
 * that would help in my understanding of how articles should look like and what information they should contain.
 * Mr.532nm (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC+1)
 * , For me it's a fine line, and one I find hard to draw. I tend to the thought that a new topi deserves a new article, and an extension of a topic requires extension to the article. There is a point when pragmatism takes overt and the extended article is too long. Usually one has a talk page discussion to reach consensus on the splitting out, spawning, of a new article ftom the meat of the old, leaving a précis in the original article.
 * that would help in my understanding of how articles should look like and what information they should contain.
 * Mr.532nm (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC+1)
 * , For me it's a fine line, and one I find hard to draw. I tend to the thought that a new topi deserves a new article, and an extension of a topic requires extension to the article. There is a point when pragmatism takes overt and the extended article is too long. Usually one has a talk page discussion to reach consensus on the splitting out, spawning, of a new article ftom the meat of the old, leaving a précis in the original article.


 * Everything here is consensus based, though sometimes one follows WP:BOLD and makes a bold edit. Usually one wishes to have a basis in Wikipedia experience and the ability to justify the boldness


 * I wonder, therefore, whether a discussion on the suggested target article talk page would bear useful fruit? There is no deadline here Fiddle   Faddle  22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, thank you for your suggestion. I will have a look into the talk-page of the articles and as soon as I find the time I will ask for more opinions on this topic.
 * In the meantime I will wait for the result of the new submission. Thank you for your help. Stay safe and healthy!
 * Mr.532nm (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

19:51:36, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Nik9hil
My article got rejected, even when it contained enough references to make sure the language exists. What else should I add? The language is very obscure.

Nik9hil (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , No. Rejection is a "No, not at all, thank you." Your draft was declined, pushed back to you for further work by an experienced reviewer. Look at the rationale in the big pink box on the draft and understand it, please.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

21:47:15, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Aurelius Lie
Thank you for reviewing my draft. It was declined due to issues regarding Notability (organizations and companies). However I believe the requirements are fully met since the guideline states "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published"

There are many reliable sources that cover the company since 2018. A list of references can be found here [Press references]. The sources include a coverage on national television as can be seen on [CBS] and a newspaper article from [USA Today]. I included both sources in the article. However not all of those sources are relevant for the article and referenced in the draft. Can you assist me in how I add these sources to the article without having to specifically mention them in the article's text? If you consider the article notable now, please accept the draft. Meanwhile I shall improve the article and continue to add sources. Aurelius Lie (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

21:52:48, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Nazimsarkar
Nazimsarkar (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Since I am a newcomer, there may be some correction. But Let the page be created

22:08:26, 19 July 2020 review of draft by DMCojo
This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is full of pages of things are are interesting, but not "notable." To reject my page simply because it isn't "notable" to you is quite narcissistic. What can I do to show what is needed in order to get this page published. It is no worse than thousands of other pages that have been published. DMCojo (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Answered above, and below. Fiddle   Faddle  22:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

22:19:59, 19 July 2020 review of draft by DMCojo
I seriously do not understand what needs to be done to my article in order for you to publish it. Please give specific examples to my page, so I can make adjustments. Sending me confusing, generic, helpdesk tips is not helpful.

Thanks. DMCojo (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , You need to prove by dint of referencing where there is significant coverage in reliable sources that the topic is notable.
 * Asking the same question in several different ways will not get you a different answer. That you are frustrated is obvious. Please try very hard not to frustrate those whose help you ask for. Fiddle   Faddle  22:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note that other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each article is judged on its own merits.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years.  We can only address what we know about. In your case, you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note that other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each article is judged on its own merits.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years.  We can only address what we know about. In your case, you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)