Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 May 21

= May 21 =

Request on 05:17:56, 21 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jyotsanaj03
Hello, I am trying to publish this article draft: Sanjeev Bhanot for a few days now. The article has all the relevant information and references. The language of the article is written by me and it does not have any advertisement in it. It has been written with a very neutral point of view. Kindly look into it. And allow to publish the article. Thank You!

Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's very promotional in nature. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

08:07:37, 21 May 2021 review of submission by FpsJimbo
Requesting a review of page for submission. Peter now qualifies as an athlete page on wikipedia due to the number of fights he has had with Bellator.

FpsJimbo (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

12:16:25, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Yourepartofit
I was working on this page consistently to try to get it approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mint_400_Records It was still being worked on and someone who is not me submitted it. Then an admin put a big stop sign on the page so it can no longer be submitted. How is this allowed? I get that the article still needs work to be published but the same admin also is now going to delete the accompanying discography page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_400_Records_discography) because the company page does not exist for it. How can the company page ever exist if nobody can work on it and submit to get it approved? Is there a limit to how many times you can submit for review? Can other editors of that page be warned of that?

Yourepartofit (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't a fixed upper number of requests, but reviewers tend to get bored if they need to decline a Draft for the 6th time for the same reason, which results in causing an end. At this point I am afraid that unless you can pull your WP:THREE, investing more time in this is probbably a time waste. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

12:31:05, 21 May 2021 review of submission by 216.174.68.20
216.174.68.20 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

13:36:08, 21 May 2021 review of draft by Bwoodcock
Hi. I maintain directories of Internet critical infrastructure, and we try to help keep Wikipedia up-to-date in the areas we work in. There's an article ("Public recursive name server") which lists the publicly-available recursive DNS nameservers. One of the most notable ones, Emerald Onion, is no longer listed there, because user Tim@ deleted it citing the lack of a Wikipedia page describing Emerald Onion itself. The Emerald Onion folks tried to remedy this by creating a page describing the organization, and honestly they did quite a good job under the circumstances, but it's been deleted twice by people who cited a lack of notability. This is an abstruse field, the people who work in it don't receive a lot of recognition in the mainstream press, but tens of millions of Internet users depend on this infrastructure, and Emerald Onion is advancing the state-of-the-art in Internet privacy. The fact that they're not a commercial company that spends a lot on self-promotion and PR does not make them less notable.

There are a lot of people who depend on the "Public recursive name server" page as an actual canonical index of the pubic recursive name servers out there. Arbitrary gatekeeping to exclude particularly notable public recursive nameservers is a disservice to the public, and makes Wikipedia inaccurate.

We need to overcome this deadlock, either by allowing the "Emerald Onion" page, or by not deleting major public recursive nameservers from the "Public recursive name server" page arbitrarily because they don't also happen to have a Wikipedia page. Having a Wikipedia page is not what makes something notable. Performing an important function that many people depend upon makes something notable.

Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make. It is true that requiring independent reliable sources means that some subject areas are underserved with Wikipedia articles, but such a requirement is necessary for verification and neural point of view purposes. If you feel that something needs to be included in the existing article you speak of, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

331dot, are you asserting that a conflict of interest exists, or that someone is being paid? If so, please state your assertion and provide whatever support you believe you have for it. And vandalizing my user page is just petty. Bill Woodcock (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You said "I maintain directories of Internet critical infrastructure, and we try to help keep Wikipedia up-to-date in the areas we work in." This makes it sound like you are editing as part of your job. If not, okay. I deleted your userpage per WP:FAKEARTICLE. User pages are meant for Wikipedia editors to tell about themselves as Wikipedia editors, and are not meant to be articles. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Next time, perhaps do the "fire, aim, assess the situation" thing in a different order? Rather than misinterpreting what I say, perhaps look into the situation yourself, and come to a decision based on what you find out. If you look into the situation, and come to the conclusion that I am somehow being paid to edit Wikipedia articles, or that I am somehow conflicted, then by all means, I would be happy to have a conversation about that. But base your action on information, rather than leaping to misassumptions. I don't really need to be lectured about the purpose of Wikipedia pages, and the page you deleted hadn't been edited since before the norms you cite came into effect, in the mid-2000s. If it's really a high priority for you what other people's user pages say on them, perhaps that's what talk pages are for, no? You're welcome to clean up and start again, if you like. Bill Woodcock (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I based my decision on what you said, including your use of "we" which suggests you are part of a business or group, and I assume you don't maintain directories for free. If you wish to clarify or explain, please do so at your convenience. I have restored your userpage on the basis of it being grandfathered as I had based my action on your most recent edit. I apologize. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be that you make it less article-like, but it's not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the userpage for deletion again, it looks entirely inappropriate per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Theroadislong (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot, thank you. You state your assumption that I don't maintain directories for free. That was an incorrect assumption. I am part of many groups, very few of them are businesses, and none of the businesses are in any way related to the field under discussion here. Which, by the way, can we get back to discussion of? Does anyone else have any opinions about the actual subject of the conversation? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Theroadislong, is there some reason y'all have so much more interest in my user page than I do, and is there some reason you feel so compelled to delete things rather than improve them? If you have a positive contribution to make, you're welcome to do so. If other people really care what's on my user page, I expect I can find some time to improve it myself. Since that appears to be what policy actually indicates. Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If a user in good faith believes any page meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, they may nominate it for deletion. I assume that they observed my restoration of the page.  I have already spoken to the matter you raise- you should discuss it on the article talk page of the existing article(which you seem to be), and that it is true that some topic areas are underserved due to a lack of independent reliable sources, but that is unavoidable. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unconnected to this discussion and wanted to offer a neutral perspective. I just reviewed the draft and don't see any sources that substantiate notability, as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would not approve the article either if I were a reviewer or patroler. Unlike other articles that include lists that only require a single source of media coverage to demonstrate notability and be included, the Public recursive name server article only contains entities that have their own articles.  Otherwise, I imagine the list would get too long and would be unsustainable. So if having an article is the requirement for inclusion, Emerald Onion has to unfortunately be left off this list. However, may I suggest that you find a blog or other self-hosting option and create your own list, and then discuss adding a link to the external links section of Public recursive name server? TechnoTalk (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I think the issue with a page for Emerald Onion may come down to how obscure the field they operate in is, so although the work they're doing is immensely important within that field, and although many people depend upon it, it's just never going to get any significant coverage in the general-audience press. The removal of rows from the Public recursive name server table turns out to have caused some serious problems with research that depended upon that list being complete, as it had been up to that point. There was a big DNS-industry conference call about the issue last Monday, and there was consensus that Wikipedia couldn't be trusted for this purpose anymore, and a canonical list will be rebuilt from the last version before these three guys started blowing away rows and columns from the table, and hosted at DNS-OARC. It's really unfortunate, a bunch of researchers will have to re-do analyses and re-publish once a valid table is established again. Bill Woodcock (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

15:53:16, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Tamil Astronomical
Tamil Astronomical (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

16:57:49, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Chimox1278
Chimox1278 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft is entirely promotional and there is zero indication that the person is in any way, shape or form notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

17:59:24, 21 May 2021 review of draft by EverydayBlogger
I have 7 additional independent sources that I can add that are interviews. Would that be sufficient to support notability?

EverydayBlogger (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:19:21, 21 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Stoptosmellroses
The reason why I'm requesting assistance is that my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guo_Shiyou) has been declined the second time. At my last revision, I removed all the praises for the scholar I was writing about leaving only the comments quoted from reliable sources. I missed one adjective "ambitious endeavor" which I removed promptly today.

My first question is: Do I need to remove all the positive comments from his critics? I was thinking those comments are from well known scholars in China and will add credibility to his work.

My second question is: The scholar I'm writing about publishes in Chinese. His works have not been translated into English yet, but he is one of the major historians in China. All the works he has published has ISBN number. All the comments on his works come from major publications in China and I provided the English title for the books and journals. Would you please tell me how I can improve on the sources? There're quite a few non-English speaking scholars in Wiki and I modeled on their biography.

Thank you so much in advance for help me. This is my first article. I hope to learn from you all.

Hongying Liu from Cupertino, CA

Stoptosmellroses (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

20:31:41, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Marco Cortez
Marco Cortez (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey guys i want my article to be published. But i don't know what is wrong that keeps declining it
 * no sources? Please review WP:INTREF. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

21:55:42, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Zblack Braah
Zblack Braah (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

22:15:57, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Zblack Braah
Zblack Braah (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

22:56:17, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Veltmann1988
I'm not exactly sure why this was deleted, other than it was not "significant" coverage. I felt I had to "Publish" the article because I had to go run errands and didn't want my draft to be deleted/not saved correctly. Not sure what other options there are.

I'm also unsure as to where the "company logo upload" form is for Wikipedia (or whatever it's called, sorry I don't remember). I looked all over for the form, but couldn't find it.

Veltmann1988 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Publish changes" should be understood as "save changes". That button was renamed a year or so ago to remind you that every edit is publicitely visible, if one knows where to look for it (Search Engines like Google don't find drafts). Since company logos are almost always copyrighted, the only option would be to upload a logo under fair use, which isn't allowed in draftspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * More like a few years ago. We've been getting complaints and bewilderment about it since at least 2016. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)