Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 September 25

= September 25 =

02:08:51, 25 September 2020 review of draft by Jaredroach
The reviewer asked for 1. "the 5 most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them" as well as 2. "the full sequence of degrees and positions, with dates"

Could you provide examples of two or three (or even just one) well-crafted articles that illustrate this, so that I can use it/them as a template(s)? For example, I tried searching for various articles about editors-in-chief of scientific journals. Not trying to pick on any particular articles, but there is so much chaff out there I can't find any wheat. Katja_Brose is an an example of one without five cited peer-reviewed articles.

Jaredroach (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A decent example of an article on an academic might be Rolando Del Maestro. There are certainly many articles that do not meet these standards. For better or for worse AfC has somewhat higher standards than the rest of the encyclopedia and reviewers will be doubly skeptical of autobiographies. Spicy (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

02:52:21, 25 September 2020 review of submission by Jaredroach
I didn't write this article. I just stumbled across it. But I checked out the notability criteria, and it clearly meets them due to being found in the 18th century. I added a reference. I suspect the article is now acceptable. Jaredroach (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Jaredroach (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria says "unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low... Therefore, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named does not guarantee notability" Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It meets the WP:NASTCRIT notability criteria based on criterion 4: "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the advent of stellar astrophotography or automated technology. Jaredroach (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct, though more sources would help the case. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

05:24:20, 25 September 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020
Please could you review the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Massar_Solutions. It has been waiting for the last 3 months. Thank you. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC))
 * No, it has been in the review Pool for 8 weeks (Since 28 July). I'm pretty sure it will get reviewed soon. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

05:27:23, 25 September 2020 review of draft by 2804:D49:4915:AA00:E496:BEB4:E2E7:6C5C
2804:D49:4915:AA00:E496:BEB4:E2E7:6C5C (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

05:38:30, 25 September 2020 review of submission by Ryszardpr
This lists soelely hard facts.

If, however, it is deleted than could it remain under my sandbox tab?

Thank you

Ryszard Praszkier

Ryszardpr (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

10:32:41, 25 September 2020 review of draft by Puneetmehragrj
Puneetmehragrj (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

13:06:47, 25 September 2020 review of submission by RzU78pzy12
Dear editors, was I successful in submitting my article on Sucharit Bhakdi for publication? If yes, what is the status of the review? RzU78pzy12 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Draft:Sucharit Bhakdi is not in the pool of drafts to be reviewed. You may submit it by clicking the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the large grey box at the top of the draft. Reviewers will decline the draft if it cites no sources, however. So before submitting the draft, add references that show where you got your information. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do so. --Worldbruce (talk)

13:23:37, 25 September 2020 review of draft by Sialkoti9345
Sialkoti9345 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to delete my article draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lahore_Motorway_City

Please delete this article


 * Hi . The draft is largely the work of another editor, . The reason you expressed in your edit summary, "i want to delete this draft because i am creating a new one for it", is not valid grounds for deleting the history of their work. You may edit the draft, but not delete it, see Deletion policy. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

13:38:20, 25 September 2020 review of submission by Snoooooooopywaves
Hi, this draft failed notability guidelines because the player hasn't played Football League or international football - is that an absolute bar? I would argue he played for a non-league club that's been very widely covered in national and international media by any standards (google 'Dulwich Hamlet Guardian'/Independent/the Times etc), and he's considered a genuine legend at that club (as attested in references). As a result he's more notable than hundreds of players who've fallen down the divisions but may have played a couple of games further up the pyramid when they were younger. Of his former teammates, for example, Quade Taylor appears to have played exactly one match for Bolton in a fully pro league and Danny Mills played three for Peterborough before touring non-league. Basically I'm wondering is there any point keeping the draft alive or will it never be accepted unless he meets the specific criteria?

Snoooooooopywaves (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . At the very top of WP:NFOOTY, it says in bold, "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." So Clunis could potentially be notable under the general notability guideline without having played at a high enough level to be notable under the notability (sports) guideline.
 * Proving it would require high-quality sources. You mention The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times, but none of them are cited in the draft. The only source it does cite that I immediately recognize as reliable and independent is the Evening Standard (not that Wikipedia's standard is "what Worldbruce recognizes", but Twitter and Pitchero? Really?) Examining the Evening Standard article, there's a single sentence sound bite from Clunis. Yes, it refers to him as "a Hamlet legend", but there is no significant coverage, no explanation of why he's a legend to fans of a team that plays on a 500-seat ground, and no indication of why a worldwide encyclopedia should include a biography of him.
 * The notability (sports) guideline undoubtedly allows in many players who don't meet the spirit of "worthy of notice", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Its bright line rule is a necessary compromise to avoid endless arguments over whether a given sportsperson is notable or not. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST may help you understand why it is not productive to compare Clunis to players of seemingly less importance.
 * I recommend you set the draft aside and work on improving existing article for a few months. When you have a better grasp of how things work here, you can reconsider whether to sink more time into the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not new to the concept of Wikipedia standards despite a relatively new account, I was just spurred to write the draft by being genuinely surprised he didn't have an article rather than any particular desire to promote him - and The Athletic, I would say, is as reliable a source as any in sports writing ("The best and longest serving player Nyren Clunis is local too, "the king of Camberwell", with more than 100 goals for the club" - behind paywall although I don't think that's a factor source-wise). But I do get your point, thanks for explaining. Snoooooooopywaves (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

13:53:06, 25 September 2020 review of submission by Rocketsandspace22
Dear reviewer, I would like to request a review of the article I submitted. I feel like I was falsely connected to the author of an article published earlier that was not written in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. I have no connection to Rocket Factory Augsburg and I do not receive money to write articles. I am just a college student from Germany that adores the space industry, especially launchers. When I realized that there was no Wikipedia article on the RFA ONE launcher, which I found in a German newspaper called Handelsblatt, I thought I try myself out in writing my first article. I am quite new to Wikipedia, so if my wording does not fit the encyclopedia language, please let me know and I try to fix it.

Sincerely, RocketsandSpace22 Rocketsandspace22 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping: . From a first look, this is sourced to many non-independent stuff. would you please indicate your WP:THREE?  Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This submission by user Rocketsandspace22 was rejected because there was already this draft created by user Rfa.space that was declined in June 2020. The only reason for rejection is that there is already a similar submission which this user can work on. I don't reject submissions simply because someone has a WP:COI. If you want to address that issue though, the usernames are similar and the topics are similar. The behavior of creating a different draft with a different name variation from a different user is typical of MEAT or SOCK in my experience. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

15:31:44, 25 September 2020 review of draft by Kinman1996
Kinman1996 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on my article for Concrete Software and have been struggling to get reputable links. I have a list of links that I've gathered and I'm wondering if they'll work. Concrete Software is also listed in other published articles - would that increase notability?

Links: This is from the San Jose Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/01/18/mobile-application-developers-grow-tired-of-waiting-for-googles-android-code/

Article talking about adverting spend during PBA events - has us listed 5th in spend: https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/05/07/In-Depth.aspx

Here is a more current article that references Farsight Studios working with us and the PBA https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/26/20934071/pba-pro-bowling-ps4-xbox-one-pc-impressions

They have Intellivision Amico and Intellivision in Wikipedia - here is a recent announcement by Intellivision on their website referencing us releasing Intellivision Monster Spades with them. https://www.intellivisionamico.com/press-releases/press-release-august-5th-2020

https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/05/intellivision-delays-launch-to-april-2021-and-unveils-20-new-titles/

https://www.tapjoy.com/resources/mobile-leaders-discuss-value-of-rewarded-ads-at-casual-connect/

https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/17/tapjoy-launches-ngen/

Here is GamesBeat talking about the Samsung store including top games like PBA Bowling, Hay Day, etc. https://venturebeat.com/2015/12/02/diving-into-the-samsung-app-store-bowling-robots-and-chickens-but-not-bowling-robot-chickens/

We are referenced in here with quotes and it also says we a bit about Concrete specializing in mobile game including.... https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/which-os-is-best-for-mobile-app-development/40542


 * who is "we"? Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for Review
Please could you review the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). I have addressed all the issues the reviewers recommended at article for deletion. They had said the article was notable but needed a new draft with recommended changes. I have tried to incorporate them. Thanks (Kuruvillac (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC))
 * That is patently incorrect, your draft has been declined, rejected and even deleted before Articles for deletion/Adeeb Ahmed comments included “ undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of independent notability”, “paid for spam with the usual pr puffery as sources.” “a non-notable businessman” Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sir,

I was referring to this discussion-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_August_27.

All the reviewers were courteous, constructive and helpful. Thank you again(Kuruvillac (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC))
 * Ok..the comments there included “it reads like the sort of minibio that's solicited from and submitted by its subject", “have looked again at the disastrous set of references on the draft. I stand by WP:BOMBARD and will not review them individually. I would not accept this draft as it stands today”, “ It is clear that the current draft is rejected, thus any new one needs to be substantially different, with better quality references, but not a vast quantity of them.” nowhere does anyone suggest he is notable? Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have looked with some care at various editors' advice to you and revisited my own. Deletion review/Log/2020 August 27 is highly relevant. I regret that, though this draft is tighter, the referencing remains unhelpful. I am forced to conclude that the gentleman is not notable.
 * Why do I come to this conclusion?
 * Because, despite your obvious hard work, the gentleman has no true notability. Billionaires, while not ten-a-penny, are common. Businessmen and businesswomen are legion, and this gentleman has not been shown to be anything other than WP:ROTM, a decent gentleman doing his job well. If references were there you would have found them. I only asked you for WP:THREE and I cannot see them Fiddle   Faddle  18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

20:28:21, 25 September 2020 review of draft by EightArmReader
The feedback I received was "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." As this is an article about a book, modeled after the pages for other books by the same author, I'm not sure how the tone is off. If the issue is the lack of sources, what sort of sources and how many are appropriate for an article that is mostly a book summary?

Thank you for your guidance.

EightArmReader (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)