Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 15

= November 15 =

04:34:12, 15 November 2021 review of draft by Melissa Mwaura
Are there any updates that need to be made prior to the publication? Melissa Mwaura (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * there are major changes which need to happen before this accepted, you need to support everything with what we classify as reliable sources. So far none of the references that discuss the artist in any detail are considered reliable. I also don't see any indication on how they meet our other criteria of WP:NMUSICBIO. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

05:53:33, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Neelmohapatra
Neelmohapatra (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Maharishi University of Information Technology

Hello 331dot,

I am working on a draft of an article for a private University in Uttar Pradesh (Maharishi University of Information Technology). I have modified the content also summurised again on the base of wiki policies. I would appreciate any more experienced eyes on this.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about the existence of an organization like a university and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a universtity should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The only sources you have offered merely confirm the existence of the university.  Please see Your First Article. As I stated in the draft, I fear that you are too close to your university to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires.  To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about the univerity, all materials put out by the university(including press releases and announcements), and all brief mentions of it, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage. It's usually very hard for people in your position to do that.  331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

06:18:34, 15 November 2021 review of submission by VadimBlack89
I am still wondering what is needed to have one's own Wikipedia page for an artist. There are a number of links showing author's work including the reference from the Pahlavi queen.

VadimBlack89 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have pages, it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. You have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this artist. Because of this, the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further.  Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

09:19:02, 15 November 2021 review of submission by JulieFr
The draft has been declined because it does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" However this draft is very similar to (inspired by, in fact) the Wikipedia page of James Kennedy (social psychologist), a friend and colleague of M. Clerc. They both worked on the same topic (Particle Swarm Optimization, PSO), they both had the same IEEE rewarded paper, and, on this page, I do not see more "published, reliable, secondary sources".

Actually J. Kennedy himself says the contribution of M. Clerc to PSO is greater than his own. Even if you do not ask him directly, you could search on "pso contribution kennedy clerc".

So I do not understand. Please explain. And because I don't understand I don't know what to do.

JulieFr (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This is a subtle but important distinction.  Please see other stuff exists.  That other similar articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too.  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.  We can only address what we know about.  I've marked the Kennedy article as problematic(with poor citations). It isn't required (except for new or unregistered users) to use this process, though it's a good idea.
 * The sources you have offered do not seem to be about Clerc personally, and/or do not offer significant coverage of him; most seem to confirm the specific facts given(such as the existence of his work). There is a line about his hobbies that is completely unsourced and likely inappropriate unless independent sources discuss his hobbies. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (& ) I haven't looked at the sources in detail however, it seems like the WP:NACADEMIC notability criteria might be relevant, if it can be shown that the subject is indeed a leader in his particular field. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

11:29:15, 15 November 2021 review of draft by JJking56
JJking56 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. If you want to submit your draft, click the "Submit your draft for review" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

15:17:57, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Nuttyprofessor2016
Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

He has received 3 awards since the last submission. There are interviews and other things about him out. Should I submit it for re-review?
 * Hi . No, don't bother. The subject isn't notable. The awards are meaningless, non-notable, business puffery. Interviews are primary sources, and rarely have independent analysis by the interviewer, so they don't help establish notability. This piece of pyrite is unwelcome in the treasury of knowledge that is Wikipedia. Don't waste volunteer time with it. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

15:26:02, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Anna karligkioti
Dear editors, I have questions on the comments given on my proposed entry "Historical bioarchaeology" as it was declined. I would be glad if you could help me out on the following. First of all can you elaborate on why my term is considered neologism by the editor? My proposed entry aimed at giving this term publicly since it is the combination of two subfields of research (in my study areas) and it is very often misunderstood. In addition to that I didn't promote any personal work but rather did initial research in order to contribute in Wikipedia in a detailed manner that followed both code of conduct and guidelines. Lastly, I cannot see how my detailed article is not sufficient for being published, while another less detailed and updated one has an entry of its own namely "Medieval bioarchaeology" (which also counts less words). Thank you in advance! Best regards, Anna

Anna karligkioti (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Anna karligkioti please confirm that you have read and understood the message left by the reviewer who declined (not rejected, which is final) your submission. They have given you a route forward. Ask them why they consider it a neologism, please. Have you done so before posting here? All reviewers must be able to justify reviews and explain them  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me thank you very much for your reply! Yes I have and I am currently try to follow suggestions!

16:39:30, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Shassafrass
Shassafrass (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to figure out why there are approved wikipedia entries for many white male designers and artists with less accomplishments and references while this page is continually refused publication.
 * See other poor quality articles exist for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And there's a distinct possibility that they weren't approved. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As to the sources:
 * https://tedxboulder.com/speakers/rick-griffith is useless for notability (connexion to subject). TED talks in general are worthless for notability since it's the subject speaking about a topic at length.
 * https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2020/09/field-notes-united-states-of-letterpress/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * We can't use https://morematter.com/ (website homepage, connexion to subject).
 * https://morematter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RG-Bio-and-CV.pdf is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything on his firm's website is by default a surrogate for him.
 * https://sightlinesmag.org/other-worlds-film-festival-announces-lineup is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * https://www.westword.com/arts/rick-griffith-of-denvers-matter-studio-puts-his-faith-in-young-people-9768166 looks fine.
 * https://mashable.com/article/free-posters-black-lives-matter is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop. Mashable in and of itself is dodgy as a source.
 * https://www.culturetype.com/2020/07/03/art-for-change-12-black-designers-created-black-lives-matter-protest-posters/ is borderline. I'd prefer to see a bit more than what this article has.
 * https://lampoonmagazine.com/matter-denver-rick-griffith-debra-johnson/ is 404-compliant.
 * https://www.5280.com/2020/09/colorados-only-black-owned-bookstore-is-ready-for-the-revolution/ looks fine.
 * https://theknow-old.denverpost.com/2020/12/18/tattered-cover-new-owners-backlash/250784/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Practically all the information about Griffith in the article is either direct quotes from him or attributions to him.
 * https://www.westword.com/news/rick-griffith-has-designs-on-denver-bold-ones-5111186 seems fine.
 * https://theknow-old.denverpost.com/2020/07/31/independent-bookstores-denver/242589/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Listicle article's mostly about MATTER and doesn't really discuss Griffith specifically, except to attribute views and quotes to him.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/business/black-owned-bookstores-anti-racist-literature/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop in photo caption and a direct quote.
 * https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/black-owned-bookstores-work-to-keep-up-with-high-demand-on-black-history-anti-racism-books is useless for notability (too sparse). Almost all of the content about Griffith in the article is direct quotes, with the one outlier being a one-line mention.
 * https://www.printmag.com/design-inspiration/last-minute-gifts-for-designers-rick-griffith-s-words-to-design-and-live-by/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). [...]Rick Griffith is PRINT’s first Artist-in-Residence.
 * https://www.printmag.com/design-thinking/rick-griffith-a-love-letter-to-design-a-list-of-demands-and-a-stern-look/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The above applies, and he wrote the article.
 * https://www.printmag.com/design-inspiration/rick-griffith-the-art-and-craft-of-the-second-guess/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The above applies.
 * I can't assess https://mcadenver.org/exhibitions/colorado-present-tense without knowing (1) how significant the exhibition was and (2) how significant Griffith's works were in it.
 * https://303magazine.com/2012/07/rick-griffith-genius-matters/ seems to be useless for notability (connexion to subject). 303 Magazine is an arm of 303 Mixed Media, which is a full-service creative marketing agency providing clients with social media management, content creation, marketing consulting and event solutions. In this light, the source is suspect.
 * https://designarchives.aiga.org/#/entries/Rick%20Griffith/_/detail/relevance/asc/0/7/2530/seeking-new-suprematist-forms-through-typography/1 is useless for notability (too sparse). A short descriptive profile of one of his works doesn't help a whit for his notability.
 * https://colorado.aiga.org/about-us/past-boards/ is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject).
 * https://www.artsandvenuesdenver.com/scfd-tier-iii/denver-county-cultural-council is a non-sequitur.
 * In summary, while you do have good sources, they are few and far between compared to all the crap. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 18:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

21:02:11, 15 November 2021 review of submission by 94.147.24.90
94.147.24.90 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)