Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 16

= October 16 =

06:32:55, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Acanga Luke
Acanga Luke (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Hello, would like to find out why my article has been declined?
 * does the big pink box at User:Acanga Luke/sandbox/The Modern Academic Library not help you? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTESSAY. -- Kinu t/c 02:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

10:08:34, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Maiti Meghna
The article provided by me is genuine and at present, this movement is going on in West Bengal, India. Please, I'm requesting the Wiki authority to accept my article. Maiti Meghna (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

10:56:59, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Ron.challinor
My submission has been moved to a draft because I have deprectaed and unreliable sources. How do I overcome these. Also, in one case I have a citation needed that I am unable to supply.

Ron.challinor (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you can't cite a reliable, published source for a statement, then that material should not be in the encyclopedia. If a statement cites an unreliable source, such as a self-published blog or The Daily Mail, then the content must be removed unless you can find a reliable source to replace the unreliable one. A local library or historical society might be able to suggest sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

11:21:15, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Glen Hodgson
I have written a page on Budapest Process which is being investigated for copyright issues. I have contacted the Budapest Process website administrators and they are happy for the material to be used. They will also send across an e-mail confirming this.

Glen Hodgson (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is no longer in draft space, but to be clear: Generally any text provided by the subject themselves is not suitable for Wikipedia, whether because it's not neutral or not reflected in credible secondary sources. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

14:05:05, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Kyrawalenga
I'm wondering why it "reads like an advertisement" when they are simply the facts of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrawalenga (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it reads like an investment brochure. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

14:56:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Thatoilguy
Did I correctly add citations and sources for AFC? I found many sources for my first AFC - Even linked to official london stock exchange site for citation.

Thatoilguy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

16:21:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Francis Bea
I just reviewed the feedback and wanted to see if I could get a clarification on the reason for the article's rejection. For those familiar with the AR/MR industry, Nreal is considered to be on par with Magic Leap and Hololens and in fact typically mentioned in the same sentence as the company is the industry as the only one to have launched consumer mixed reality glasses on the market - following Magic Leap's pivot. Not to mention the founder is from Magic Leap. But on the mention regarding the criteria of notability Magic Leap had gone out of its way to sue the company, which resulted in independent, albeit unfavorable coverage about Nreal.

Francis Bea (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

16:38:06, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Nthanhou
I have authored an article on Ray Tauser that required additional references which have been supplied. I "published" this but no response, yet. Here is a link to the DRAFT article: Draft:Ray_Tauser

Would you please help me get this approved or what is needed for publication? I have just finished a documentary about Ray Tauser and having a Wiki page will be visited as a result.

Thank you, Ned Thanhouser (nthanhou)

Nthanhou (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

16:46:31, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Willairwin
Greetings! I submitted this bio on September 24, having complied -- or attempted to comply -- with the proper in-line referencing format. I was almost immediately referred to how to properly format. I believe I have done so, so I re-submitted the bio yesterday. Could please tell me the status, and if it is still not properly formatted, could you please tell me what I need to do to correct it.

Thank you very much.

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Will Irwin

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't read WP:REFB as advised and you have not re-submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

17:43:20, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Pilotmichael
Trying to get this article published and there are questions of reliable independent sources. Pilotmichael (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please list your WP:THREE below. Keep in mind that we are looking for sources that meets all of these criteria:


 * They are reliable. Commonly unreliable sources include user-generated sources such as most social networks. There is a non-exhaustive list of sources which were frequently discussed regarding reliability at WP:RSP.
 * They are independent of the subject. Not regarded as independent are interviews with the subject (or the subject's employees), and press releases
 * They offer significant coverage of the subject. One of two paragraphs should be enough, thoug more is always better.
 * I dont realy want to generate a full source assesment, because I dont consider it worth the time needed to create it. You may also want to look at WP:CSMN. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. The sources do meet all three of the criteria. They are reliable, independent and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC) And, there are numerious sources sited that are reliable, independent and significant. So I do not understand the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which are the numerous sources cited that you think are all three: reliable, independent, and significant? Most of the sources appear to be coming from exploringwineregions.com. Of those sources, some are potential copyright violations, since it's unclear whether there is adequate permission for the republication of that material. Having looked at a few, I don't see anything specifically in-depth. The Vancouver Sun one, for instance, includes a few sentences about one of the books. Same with the Chicago Tribune's four sentences. Also, even if you were able to demonstrate that one of the books might meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are writing an article about a series of books, and notability is not inherited. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the ones that appear on exploringwineregions.com are simply photographs of the articles being memorialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:8823:FCAD:8D98:AA4F (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Cyphoidbomb Thank you for being specific about this. Of the 35 sources cited, 34 are independent. I am understanding that reliable is not an issue. Regarding significance. Some are short and some are long; however, all are significant in terms of quality. Quality is more important than quantity, correct? You mention Chicago Tribune for example having just one paragraph. That one paragraph is quite significant when you consider that the Chicago Tribune receives and reviews thousands and thousands of books and this book was chosen as one of six winners. That is actually very significant! Regarding inherited notability, I understand. And not concerned. The second book is quickly becoming even more notable. For example, today, the book won a major book award against the books of the big publishing houses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:8823:FCAD:8D98:AA4F (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot to login. You wanted me to make a special assesment, well, here we are:


 * I do the last few assesments later when I've got more time. * Note for all uploads to exploringwineregions.com: I am not so sure if exploringwineregions.com has the rights to republish those texts. They appear to be from at least 15 distinct sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated and completed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

So how do we resolve this and get this article published? Reading you say you are not so sure if exploringwineregions.com has the right to republish those texts. We are absolutely sure we can republish those texts per the Fair Use Provisions and backed by EWR's registration with the US Copyright Office. Besides, this is of no issue for Wiki and you show exactly why it is necessary as you say the last source has nothing to do with EWR. That is because the publisher changed what was on that page. You nor we have the ability to keep the text we want because they are independent. Independent! And further, they provide the necessary source documentation.

You go on to say you don't like what journalists write. That is not for you to critique, they are independent, and if they like to write like a press release or have lots of glory words, then, if anything, that further indicates the true significance of the books.

Why do you think the one paragraph with the Chicago Tribune is not significant (for example)? Are you saying that quantity is the determining factor, not quality? The one-paragraph (acceptable by Wiki's written standards) represented the significance that this book was chosen out of thousands of books. That is very much significant and does not need the rambling of paragraphs that you seem to feel is what makes something significant.

You show many of the sources withOUT a "no" for meeting the standards. That is because they DO meet the standards, so do many that you say no to unjustifiably.

So, how do we get this resolved and get the article published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to jump in to briefly explain "significant coverage": Per WP:GNG, this does not mean that you or I find it significant that the Chicago Tribune mentioned the book. Significant coverage, as described at WP:GNG wants the content article cited to talk about the subject in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention is what the guideline states and notes that The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. While book-length material about a book series is not going to be the threshold for this article to exist, the sources cited will need to talk about the book series in abundant detail, which the four sentences at the Chicago Tribune do not do. The types of questions we'd expect to see answered: Who wrote the series? When was the series written? Who published the series? How many units were sold? What events inspired the series? How long did it take to assemble each book? Did the series win any awards? What impact did the books have on wine tourism? Etc. This is a non-exhaustive list. My point is that significant coverage would provide lots of details, not just a quick synopsis of what one book is about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Strikethrough "content" as bad word choice. Changed to "article cited". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cyphoidbomb for the information, especially the type of questions that need to be answered. I will go back to the article and update to make it more complete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the draft article you are writing has to have this information, I was saying that a reference that the Wikipedia community would consider as providing "significant coverage" would be one that talks about the book series in great detail, providing answers to questions like the ones I raised above. It seemed to me that you were confused about what we consider "significant coverage" to be. A four-sentence acknowledgement in the Chicago Tribune would likely not be considered significant coverage by the Wikipedia community. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Chicago Tribune is just one of 35 sources. Others have lengthy information. I do feel some of the questions you raised would be good to have in the article and that was what I planned to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

20:26:24, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Floridaracingnews
I am requesting help to make sure the copyright release for photos has been received as well as making sure the layout of the article is uniform with other auto racing articles.

I would also like an opinion on the citations and links provided to make sure they are what is required to verify the information.

I have received notice on the copyright release for the photos used on this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridaracingnews (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Floridaracingnews (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)