Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 30

= January 30 =

Request on 03:00:50, 30 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MyHelp1
MyHelp1 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

03:02:22, 30 January 2021 review of submission by Socialmates
Socialmates (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

03:16:45, 30 January 2021 review of draft by Blakedes2
My artice on the Christmas Mountain Caldera Complex is mostly from 2 Sources. Which are both Cited and referenced. I would like to Submit for confirmation please. Please let me know if i need to change anything

Blakedes2 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted by the reviewer, a few more sources would probably be the best thing you could do before resubmitting. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

05:27:45, 30 January 2021 review of submission by Wattdan
Wattdan (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please what should I do to publish the page again
 * The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. It appears that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, and that the draft is largely promotional in nature.  To be frank, it will only waste your time and that of others if you pursue this further at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Request on 07:01:28, 30 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by KambizShekdar
Please take a look at my submission, which is a new Wiki page for Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, an IRS-certified 501(c)3 not-for-profit in the United States. I created the page to raise awareness of the existence of the organization and its work, which has garnered published support from U.S. Presidential Candidates to the largest public event in NYC and which is described in multiple publications about the organization, including an article in Undark Magazine, a thoroughly fact-checked publication offered by MIT that covers science for the general public. Despite these and many other significant citations that support the information on the page, a reviewer simply deleted the page based on a single reviewer's comments suggesting that the page was not supported, and where that reviewer is active in the same general field as the organization. I would appreciate additional review by others to ensure an unbiased review in this case. Thank you very much.

KambizShekdar (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Note that prior reviews must remain; the reviewer did not delete the draft or even blank it. Also please note that "raise awareness of the organization and its work" is considered a promotional purpose on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is only concerned with if the organization is shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I don't know if it will be accepted, but it currently reads as a promotional piece for the organization and its work and not just a summary of independent reliable sources. Non-profits are treated no differently than for-profits in this regard (note that this is a global website and as such the US tax code is literally foreign to many here) and Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about good work. Since you say you are associated with this organization, please review conflict ot interest and paid editing for information on formal declarations to make. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You say that you "created the page to raise awareness of the existence of the organization" that is NOT what a Wikipedia article is for, the article reads like a blatant advertisement and will need a complete re-write in neutral tone if it is ever to be accepetd. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

15:55:58, 30 January 2021 review of submission by D1ofBerks
Hello, I have been in discussions with an editor regarding my article Draft:Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison. He suggests that I come to you for advice. Before I resubmit the article it requires some amendments (to give a better introduction to the mathematical concepts and to remove several examples of synthesis), which I hope to do shortly. In addition though, it has been suggested that the material could (should?) be added to an existing article Direction finding. Initially I considered doing just that, but decided not to for the following reasons. 1. The article would become excessively long. 2. The existing article describes, in general terms, a number of techniques that existed before the second world war, at RF frequencies (i.e frequencies below 1 GHz), whereas my article gives explicit details about a DF method applicable at microwave frequencies (i.e. frequencies 1GHz to 20GHz), which became possible after the war. 3. The techniques and equipment involved, at microwave frequencies, are quite different to those at RF. In addition, the previous techniques are unsuitable for detecting a transmitter bent on avoiding detection. 4. My article does show how a bearing value is actually determined. This does involve some mathematics which, next time, I hope to explain more clearly. Also I give references for technical readers, who wish to obtain more information. Consequently, the two approaches are rather different, and this may look odd in the same article. What do you think? Please advise.

D1ofBerks (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It seems to me that you need have a conversation with the reviewer who rejected it in order to determine their rationale. Fiddle   Faddle  19:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My only rationale is that I think it should be merged into the already existing direction finding article. I also saw that a split-off from the topic has a requested merge tag on it right now. I guess that D1ofBerks just doesn't agree with my rationale. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 30

January 2021 (UTC)
 * , seems a decent rationale to me. Fiddle   Faddle  19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you (all) for your comments. I shall now consider how to best merge my article into the existing one. I aim to simplify it here and there, but remain concerned that the final article will be very long. Will that be a problem? D1ofBerks (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

16:09:04, 30 January 2021 review of draft by Asadpolash
Asadpolash (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you just tell me what exactly I have to do to publish the article as as wikipedia page? i am stuck and I have added all the unique things here, still it's getting declined.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._ARSAFM_Qudrat_E_Khoda
 * Your draft has zero reliable references see WP:REFB for help with formatting them, but also the tone is totally inappropriate with far too much gushing praise... charismatic, extraordinary skills, diversified, prestigious, son of the great Islamic reformer, enlightening thousands etc. etc. Wikipedia just requires the plain dry referenced facts. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

17:12:51, 30 January 2021 review of draft by Olivecool
I was writing a description with news and fact but being rejected. Dustykid is a fictional character like Hello Kitty. I am a fan of Dustykid, wish to let more people know about it. How can I make the article become better? Thanks

Olivecool (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor may it be used to publicize, or "let more people know about" anything, so your stated purpose is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. An encyclopedia article about a fictional character should treat the subject in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of the character in addition to a concise description of the character and its context. Hello Kitty is not a particularly good article, but it's a good topic because people have studied and written about these aspects of the character. There's even an entire book from an academic press about it: Without multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Dustykid, no amount of editing will get the draft published. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)