Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 21

= March 21 =

15:50:27, 21 March 2020 review of draft by TheBirdsShedTears
Please review this draft. Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, I only reviewed your article preemptively last time because I thought that it was unfairly moved to the draft space. In general, you will have to wait until the article is reviewed through AFC. To ensure that it is accepted upon review, I would recommend you clarify the notability of the subject a bit more. Currently, all the sources seem to be autogenerated or mere passing references. I believe this source does indicate notability (although one could make an argument that it isn't sufficiently reliable/independent). The other source that could potentially indicate notability is a 404 error. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have corrected this. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , great. I see that it has been moved to the mainspace now. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

17:20:24, 21 March 2020 review of submission by MShafeeqKA
MShafeeqKA (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for promoting anything. With few exceptions, all facts must be sourced to independent reliable sources. Further, Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

20:31:53, 21 March 2020 review of submission by 167.179.164.60
Please let me know the content type I need to consider to publish this page. Thank you. 167.179.164.60 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

21:00:49, 21 March 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach
Eeberbach (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We spent almost one year on corrections to Wikipedia of this specific notable page. We target a general Wikipedia readers, and do not assume any previous knowledge, following precisely the advice of several Wikipedia editors. Our submission is written in formal objective Wikipedia way as facts supported by multiple reliable and notable references. Note that our submission to Wikipedia does not constitute an original research or is essay-like, but it is based on former research by many reputable authors. The presented facts/contents are of very high quality and notable. We hope to get an independent and objective formal review, either accepting it or showing precisely which paragraphs/sections may still require corrections. Eeberbach (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use, your colleague should create and use his own account. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your article has no links to other articles, but it mentions Evolutionary algorithm, Evolutionary computation and Genetic Algorithms, have you looked at these articles? They give an indication of the encyclopaedic tone and format that you should be using in your draft, which reads like an academic paper. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your replies at User_talk:Eeberbach further show that you don't understand core Wikipedia policies and would rather argue each point instead of actually learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

22:13:45, 21 March 2020 review of submission by 45.127.89.165
45.127.89.165 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Although you are responding under a different IP addresses than previous requests, I am assuming you are the same person. You've requested a review of this article multiple times before and gotten the same response. The subject simply isn't notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this means there is no way to create an article for a non-notable subject. I'm copying and pasting my previous comments in case you forgot them: "the subject has been reviewed by experienced AFC reviewers and determined to be not notable. It has been reviewed by others (including me) and we agree with the original assessment. If you want to edit Wikipedia further, I would recommend turning your attention to editing pages that have already been created. Creating an article on Wikipedia is a difficult task and it's much easier to start out by editing pages that already exist. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them here (a more specific inquiry would be appreciated, though)."

Again, if you have a more specific question, I'd be glad to answer it. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

23:55:58, 21 March 2020 review of draft by Realbillbixby34
Hi, a reviewer declined my submission due to a lack of reliable sources. According to the MoS, citations are not allowed on disambiguation pages, so by what channel should I provide these sources? Thanks. Realbillbixby34 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think that the message that gave was a bit misleading. Disambiguation pages should only have a brief explanation at the top if that is the main topic. Since "High strangeness" with respect to UFOs doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, this can't be considered the main topic. Perhaps (but this is just speculation), Sulfurboy thought you intended to write an article on that term. Maybe they can explain their reasoning more. If you remove that first sentence so all that remains is "High strangeness may refer to:" I believe the disambiguation would stand as is. Also I should note that if there is no "main" topic, the disambiguation page usually takes the name of the "main" topic. This would require some shuffling of redirects though so can be taken care of later. And finally, I would like to thank you for creating a perfectly legitimate and well intentioned article. If you scroll up on this page, you'll see that many of the queries we have to handle are people trying to make articles about themselves or people paid to create articles about companies. It's nice to see a well-intentioned editor for once. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah a custom decline message would have been better. Essentially the issue here is that you're making the lead of this disambiguation about a subject not currently covered on wikipedia. Disambiguation pages should only serve as a navigation tool to serve as a waypoint between two or more subjects, they shouldn't in any way resemble an article. A hat on the two pages you are trying to distinguish is likely more appropriate here, particularly considering the two subjects have little to do with the literal term other than being named after it. Another option would be to just create a page for high strangeness. If you think the topic is notable enough I'd be happy to help contribute to that. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)