Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 12

= November 12 =

02:01:07, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Sassamiss
Sassamiss (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sassamiss I'm afraid we need to upgrade to Telepathy 2.0.37b in order to determine your question. I thought this reply at you for a while, but, since you didn't seem to receive it, I thought I'd better reply here. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

07:12:25, 12 November 2021 review of submission by Kakyoin95
Dear,

I am writing regarding the Dewesoft article. The article was rejected even after big reconstruction and inclusion of important sources - Ph.D.'s. I really don't understand why. I am following the guidelines and trying my best to make this an academic article. I was making sure to exclude every material that might seem promotional - this excludes all self-published sources (which are allowed to use but I specifically didn't just to make sure), I excluded the part about the awards company got (since it might be misleading to the readers), I am not including any products (just to make sure), I was researching deeply into the history of the company and its founders and try to include as many details as possible to make a suitable article, selecting only information that I believe it is suitable for an academic article.

I understand that this article has a bad history since it was rejected many times. But for the last times it was resubmitted for a review I did take into consideration all the guidelines and comments I was getting. I specifically focused on similar, already published articles on the same theme as this, for example, Wikipedia article for National Instruments. NI is a data acquisition company and most of the sources in the Wiki article are self-published! Most of the article consists of the History of the company and it even includes the part about the products! This is why I really can't understand how can one article on the same theme and similar content be published and other rejected.

I understand you might be worried that this is promotional content but it really isn't. I am a young (just graduated) researcher who is currently spending much time learning about data acquisition in general. Normally I wouldn't care much if the article was published or not, but this one is bugging me for quite a time. I published about Dewesoft because I was researching the DAQ companies and I haven't found Dewesoft on Wikipedia. I believe that if someone is searching for this kind of information it is always good to have at least basic info in Wikipedia, so then you can continue your research otherwhere. For this, I decided to create it. It was meant for fun and to maybe facilitate the search for someone like me. I understand I was not putting my best to make an article for Wikipedia standards but I was really stubborn and try to follow all the given advice and really make something valuable. If it wasn't for my stubbornness I wouldn't insist on publishing it... But it really annoys me because I don't understand. I even asked for the opinion of my University professor - if he thinks that the article is being promotional. He did comment that this kind of article is not well supported with news references but after I mentioned to him that it is an article made for Wikipedia, he agreed that the resources are good and should be accepted as reliable.

So... I am really frustrated about this... I am trying my best and I am trying for some quite time... Again, I understand that this article was problematic. But it was problematic in the past. I strongly believe that for someone who puts this much time into improving, this should be rewarded.

I did get some valuable information from the last rejections - and I did consider them to improve myself. But for this last rejection, it just says it is 'contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia'. It doesn't make sense... It really does not... I strongly believe that this article was not rejected because it contains 'bad' content, but because it was problematic in the past.

Please I would love to hear your opinion and constructive advice on how to improve the article. I don't believe it is the right thing for me to just give up... Not after so much time and effort, I put into it. I hope you can understand.

Best regards!

Kakyoin95 (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources are not prohibited(see WP:PRIMARY), but cannot be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not in what it says about itself.
 * Please read Other Stuff Exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us.  Furthermore, this submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, nor is everyone required to use it(though it is a good idea to).  We can only address what we know about.  If you would like to help out, you can identify other similar articles you have seen for possible action.  If you wish to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as good articles; those are the best ones to use.
 * As an encyclopedia, not every topic merits an article on Wikipedia just for existing. We aren't interested in "basic info". A company merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  Independent reliable sources does not include press releases, annoucements of routine business activities, brief mentions, staff interviews, or other primary sources. I cannot read Slovene but it appears to me that most of the sources you offered fall into those categories or similar. This is why it was rejected, after other chances at resubmission failed to remedy the situation.  It was not rejected solely because it was previously declined. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply and advice! It makes much more sense now. I will look deeply into the criteria for notable companies and try to find better articles for a model to help me out.

I kinda knew that solely press release is not enough to support the notability of a company, that's why I really tried to focus more on the English Ph.D. I put into it and just support the facts with other news articles. But I guess this is not enough to establish notability? I could support the facts with some self-published sources but I don't believe it will do any good with the article... I also believe you are right that it can be problematic for Slovenian sources to be cited so I will try to focus more on finding English ones.

I know that my statement about the article not being published because it was deleted so many times might seem aggressive, but I was really disappointed with the rejection because I did not know what I did wrong. The rejections only state that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia and then you have so many pages to read on your own and then you just have to figure it out and predict what is wrong with your article... And even if you do it still gets rejected... it is just so frustrating.

So I apologize if I'm complaining much, I am just sad to see all the effort go to vain. However, I am grateful for your communication and the piece of advice you gave me... I will try to do better next time.

Best regards!

Kakyoin95 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Kakyoin95 Might I suggest you abandon the rejected draft. Instead, write a tight, brief, well referenced item. Start from scratch by reading this essay, one of many that discusses creation of articles. Write it short, sharp and factual. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

12:23:23, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Rdxmen000
Rdxmen000 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

18:53:07, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Leoz1999
My draft was declined because the subject was not deemed notable enough. His version of the 14 characteristics of fascism is one of the most common definitions given for fascism, even showing up before Umberto Eco in Google's search results. He has also been mentioned before in Wikipedia talk and it was suggested that a page for him be made.

He is also the subject of many recent article discussing definitions of fascism including the sources linked in the draft and the following article.

Please read through the cited sources before deciding whether or not he is notable enough for a Wikipedia page.

Leoz1999 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not consider mentions in other articles to be any sort of justification for an article. Medium is not an acceptable source. Your sources overall aren't much help, as the first is written by him and the third doesn't mention him at all; the second source is good but cannot in and of itself carry the article. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

19:41:11, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Emmachernandez
I am requesting help to see why my article for Jake Allyn has not been approved. There was a dispute of notability but the editor agreed "No Mans Land" was notable enough. To add another source, Jake has been a lead in TV series "The Quad" and many other projects. His brother, Conor Allyn, just had his article approved on wikipedia and as they work together at their own production studio I would say Jake qualifies the same if not more since he is involved in even more projects as an actor. I attempted to take out some of the biased jargon and would love to know how I can further improve his article for approval! Thank you so much for your help in advance! Emmachernandez (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Emmachernandez (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Emmachernandez Please see WP:NACTOR
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * The photograph in the draft is being considered but Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. Commons has very precise rules. You may not just upload a picture you have been sent by someone. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

21:40:17, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Pennyframstad
Pennyframstad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would to request deleting this article as I will be creating an article titled "Professor Louie & the Crowmatix" as the majority of citations are for his band. Thank you Pennyframstad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad


 * @Pennyframstad You may place db-user at the head of the item you wish to be deleted since you are its sole substantive author. However, unless the band is called "Professor Louie & the Crowmatix" may I counsel you against that course of action. Instead write about the one or the other. Articles that span two subjects almost always fail because they are neither one thing nor the other Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Faddle Talk to me thank you so much for clarifying this, I really appreciate it. Now I know to be very specific on only one subject in the article. Pennyframstad (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad


 * @Pennyframstad Happy to be of some small help. The second thing I can do to help you is to say "Write tight, dull-but-worthy, correctly referenced prose."
 * In Wikipedia terms, less prose is truly more use than overblown verbiage. We need facts, but made to run as fair prose.
 * The existing draft can be a good basis, or you can simply overwrite it or even abandon it and start afresh. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Faddle Talk to me thank you Pennyframstad (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad

22:44:48, 12 November 2021 review of submission by ThePoliticalDebate
ThePoliticalDebate (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @ThePoliticalDebate please see WP:NPOLITICIAN Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is better written and mkre relevant now that the subject is an elected leader.
 * The article as presently writ is woefully undersourced. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 15:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)