Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 6

= November 6 =

02:00:24, 6 November 2021 review of submission by Buddy011
Buddy011 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty self-evident nothing has changed sourcing-wise from when I last looked at this, or even from the AfD. Quit wasting our time submitting this drek. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

02:37:01, 6 November 2021 review of submission by TheTechRobo3641
> I'm just not seeing the in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources for this. The https://www.theregister.com/ source is pretty much the only source which meets the criteria in my eyes.

I'm a bit confused. What is the definition of a reliable source?? LinuxFormat is highly recognised as a good source about Linux news.

Thank you!

TheTechRobo (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

, Agreed, Linux Format is one of the longest standing and most respected Linux publications in the UK. I'm not sure if two dedicated articles from years ago, plus a few passing mentions is sufficient to be able to make a comprehensive article, and there are so many Linux distributions (IMHO far too many) that trying to create an article for each one may be problematic. It might be easier to flesh out List of Linux distributions or a related spin-off list. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * > It might be easier to flesh out List of linux disributions or a related spin-off list.
 * I highly agree, but unfortunately if I remember correctly when that was tried, Elive's listing was removed because it didn't have an article.
 * Bit of a catch-22 there. TheTechRobo (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

05:28:48, 6 November 2021 review of submission by JOHN(TheHeretic)
Adding this data to previous submission proves beyond all doubt that gravitation cannot exist between stars and planets. ALL previous 'Wicki' gravity support is in error and needs to be removed. JOHN(TheHeretic) JOHN(TheHeretic) (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Wikipedia has zero interest in your original research, we only have articles about topics that have been covered in reliable published sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

05:58:59, 6 November 2021 review of submission by Sspringett
CycloneDX is one of only three formats allowed to fulfill the requirements in Executive Order 14028 in the United States. There are an estimated 100K organizations using it in production, is supported by many security vendors, recommended by multiple world governments, and is supported by over 80 tools, both commercial and open source. I have added a lot more text and public citations that elevate the fact that the standard is relevant.

Sspringett (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As noted by the reviewer, it does not meet the definition of notable software that Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a connection with this software, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

17:32:02, 6 November 2021 review of submission by MiCirazoncito
MiCirazoncito (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is not getting publish I'm submitting all the information that's requested in order to be publish but it seem like is only one person that's reviewing the information. I demand another person to check it. I don't want User:Theroadislong to review this work because it seem like he just don't want to accept my work. I been working on this article for 3 week now and it keep getting denied by the same person.
 * Shopping around for someone you hope will tell you what you want to hear is not likely going to work. Demands are also not likely to get a response.  There are a limited number of reviewers who are working as volunteers in their free time.  You can be told what you want to hear or you can be told the right thing.  Theroadislong is an experienced, knowledgeable user and you would be wise to listen to them.  They are absolutely correct in their assessment of your draft.  It is a glowing promotional piece about the person that is poorly sourced.  A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Interviews with the person/what they post on social media is not acceptable for establishing notability.  Please see Your First Article.
 * If you have a connection with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

00:25:04, 6 November 2021 review of draft by JamesKonrad
JamesKonrad (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC) My article was just declined. The reason I got was that I violated the law about the authorised usage of media files (pictures). As far as I know,all those filles are property of Mr.Boris Martinovich,who gave me his consent. I asked Mr.Martinovich to send you his consent. And I am sure you did receive it. What should I do now for resubmitting my article?
 * The copyright status of an image isn't why the draft was declined (it's why an image on it was removed). Rather, the issue is your sourcing. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim about a living or recently-departed person that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong in-depth and independent source that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found for that claim) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement for such content and is NOT negotiable. In addition, most of your sources are missing necessary bibliographical information required to look them up, making them effectively worthless as sources. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for explanation. This is my first article on Wikipedia, so I am still learning. I will make the changes.

23:23:33, 6 November 2021 review of draft by 176.228.137.125
Please look at number 69 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_lists_for_the_April_2019_Israeli_legislative_election#Labor_Party' 176.228.137.125 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. We don't cite ourselves. Your Knesset link is also dead. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it doesn't matter if he was number 69 or 75 or 52 on the Labor Party list. If he didn't get elected, he doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for politicians. Bkissin (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)