Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 16

= June 16 =

02:44:32, 16 June 2021 review of submission by 216.174.66.83
A request for a review is needed after additional citations and corrections have been made.

216.174.66.83 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

07:10:00, 16 June 2021 review of submission by Albinoni67
Albinoni67 (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam,

The page Draft:Simon Ogston has been rejected summarily because "Scope creep" believes the person is not "noteworthy". And yet, everything within the article proves that he is noteworthy.

After the first rejection, with others, I carefully gathered media evidence about the films of Simon Ogston, to demonstrate that he is indeed noteworthy. I am asking someone higher up the chain of command :) to please take a look at this new Draft page proposed.

If comparative noteworthiness is a measure, I am happy to provide wikipages of his contemporaries, who are, as their pages even show, less noteworthy than he is.

I look forward to having a considered reappraisal of this page and await your decision with great interest. Albinoni67 (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It seems that they do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. The main issue is that coverage of this person is tied to their work with the band only; this would mean that they do not merit a standalone article(though the band might if they don't have one already).
 * Please read other stuff exists. That other inappropriate articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean that yours can too, as if it did, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, with a limited number of volunteers and six million plus articles, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us.  We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. In addition, article standards have changed over time since Wikipedia was founded, it is possible that what was once acceptable is no longer. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Albinoni67 please take this up in the first instance with @Scope creep
 * "Summarily" obviously expresses your feelings, but they have also given a detailed and brief rationale.
 * Providing other pages that are similar is interesting, but pointless. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. A likely outcome of presenting other pages is their being offered for deletion, assuming them to be poor. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

07:41:09, 16 June 2021 review of submission by Kiptoo05
I have included relevant reference for this article.

Kiptoo05 (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

08:26:31, 16 June 2021 review of submission by Trap133
This article has many reliable sources this person pass the notability test then why this article is rejected?. Please review this article I think this article can survive. Thanks.

Trap133 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Trap133 I did. It cannot Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

11:32:52, 16 June 2021 review of submission by BasmazZz
BasmazZz (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @BasmazZz I have just nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of more than one source. It was also rejected correctly, but the reviewer may have missed the copyvio  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

13:13:20, 16 June 2021 review of draft by Hulud
I am having trouble satisfying the reviewers'/approvers' critiques that move with each submission. The latest decline was because there are not enough secondary sources. The context of secondary sources is not applicable here as this page is about an academic product of software. A secondary source would simply be that this software exists according to a secondary source (we have this reference/source). This software is used by other researchers and has been cited, but referencing those works is entirely out-of-context for the Wikipedia article. The other published pages on related software packages do not contain ANY secondary sources. See ANTIGONE and IPOPT as references, as I followed the formatting of those pages very closely. I kindly request a re-review that is more fairly applied within this academic product/software context. Thank you.

Hulud (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Hulud If a paper is peer reviewed that can act as a reference.
 * Generally the review requirements do not move with each submission, but one of two things may happen:
 * The reviewer only offers a bite sized chunk because experience has shown that  more ib=s nit digestible by the creating editor
 * a subsequent reviewer might have a different view from the prior reviewer anyway and would have reviewed it thus had they  reviewed it first.
 * The three reviewers who have pushed it back to you for more work are highly experienced. Have you approached any of them  to ask for their review too be expanded upon? That works better in general than just coming here
 * No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See other poor quality articles exist the article IPOPT has been tagged for 4 years with notability and reference issues and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See other poor quality articles exist the article IPOPT has been tagged for 4 years with notability and reference issues and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

18:08:55, 16 June 2021 review of submission by Yodeddy
I was told this read more like an advertisement and I made the necessary adjustments. I just wanted a veteran to review it for me. Thank you Yodeddy (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Yodeddy Blatant advert. Do you have a relationship with Auwarter or Coda Room?  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

18:10:20, 16 June 2021 review of submission by Atul Kumar Sharma Producer
Atul Kumar Sharma Producer (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Atul Kumar Sharma Producer Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume; this is an encyclopedia where article summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Autobiographical articles, while not forbidden, are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. To be successful, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only summarize what others say about you- most people have great difficulty in doing that. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

18:45:07, 16 June 2021 review of submission by 49.207.196.53
49.207.196.53 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was blatantly promotional. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:52:40, 16 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Shamim2240
Actually I am new here I dont know how to write here, Can you please help me to publish this article

Shamim2240 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume; this is an encyclopedia where article summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Autobiographical articles, while not forbidden, are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy.  To be successful, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only summarize what others say about you- most people have great difficulty in doing that. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

21:44:05, 16 June 2021 review of draft by Sandeep Seechewal
Sandeep Seechewal (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopaedia, not social media. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)