Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 24

= January 24 =

05:18:57, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Arun Yesubalan
Arun Yesubalan (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

11:00:02, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m
Request you to please help me in getting this article be published in Wikipedia as this is a notable article worthy to get publish in Wikipedia.

Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * did you see the replies you got to your earlier questions about the same draft, WikiProject Articles for_creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 16 and WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

13:36:17, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Patience Diez
Hello,

It is my first article on Wikipedia. I am learning, can you please help me?

The article I drafted has been rejected.

But all the sources cited in footnote are independent of the subject: they are press articles, peer reviewed publications and websites of institutions. What shall I do more?

About the comment of the reviewer: "Not clear what really makes him notable. An advisor and chair for lots of things, it seems - but what has he done to get there? What's he known for?"

He is a respected and well known curator. I thought the article was explicit about what Gregory Castera has done to get there and what he is known for: - He has curated many international exhibitions and events in major institutions – He has published books and catalogues with internationally renown publishers - He has been director of institutions

Again, can you help me to improve this article?

All the best Patience

Patience Diez (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in this context, it means that it could not be resubmitted.  Declined means it may be resubmitted.
 * The vast majority of your sources seem to just document the existence of his work or specific things he did. What we need in terms of passing this process are sources with significant coverage of him that discuss his significance or influence as the source sees it.  For example, the last sentence in the "life and career" section says that "Guest Professor of collective practices at the Royal Institute of Art Stockholm".  How does that make him a notable figure?  Did he influence the Institute to adopt a certain policy? Did he make any groundbreaking research there? Did students write about his influence on them? (these are rhetorical questions)  Things like that. Wikipedia is not a place to just document an individual's body of work. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

14:25:03, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Pluke
Hi,

I'm writing to request that Alicevision undergoes another review. I believe it now meets the criteria to be accepted onto wikipedia and the recent review lacks rationale.

The latest review of this page led to a claim that "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with no reasoning for this given. This contrasts with months of editing and review that gave constructive feedback, with previous reviewers being positive about the page, i.e. here

> That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. Gusfriend

Feedback has been acted upon and the reasoning behind choices of literature to support the page made clear.

I have been trying to communicate with @Tagishsimon, who came to final decision, for nearly two weeks now, but have had no response to my posts on their talk page, or my direct email, even though they appear to be actively editing wikipedia they haven't been able to respond to my requests.

I'm willing to take on further feedback if there is any, but also strongly think that this page should be promoted, for the reasoning in the links above.

Pluke (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest(and maybe others will disagree) I'm not seeing a reason to disagree with the rejection. The draft only documents the existence of the software and tells what it does, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the software, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable product. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @331dot, many of the sources used to support the article are from peer-reviewed journal articles, i.e. they are reliable secondary sources. The mention of alicevision in these articles is core to the articles, i.e. the software is not mentioned in passing. My recent editing has been checking this. If the crux of this decision is around notability of sources, could I please ask that you help point out why the current selection of sources aren't reliable? I can then work on trimming or replacing them with better sources. This is my first attempt to add a new article in about 5-10 years, so I might be a bit behind on the criteria that wikipedia uses. Many thanks. Pluke (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily questioning the provenance of the sources, but their content. Not everything a reliable source publishes is appropriate for establishing notability. In reading the draft it appears to me to say "This is a software, and this is what it does". I'm not seeing what is significant or influential about it. If these journals discuss that as they see it(not as the makers of the software see it) that's not clear to me from reading the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @331dot this is what I've been working on, reading the articles and dropping those that mentioned the alicevision in passing e.g. "examples of photogrammetry software include meshroom". The articles provided are different and use the software as a core component of their research, without the software the research they conducted would not have taken place. This is indirect support, "I used pluke's cough medicine" rather than "pluke makes high quality cough medicine". Is this enough? Though your comment: "If these journals discuss that as they see it(not as the makers only the software see it)" makes me think that maybe my edits were wrong, as I removed articles that were doing exactly that, and listing meshroom as an example of photogrammetry software for a range of different fields.
 * Additionally, the support in literature of this tool seems much stronger than many of the software currently listed on Comparison_of_photogrammetry_software, e.g.
 * - 3DF Zephyr - only mentions that it is cited on google scholar
 * - Ames Stereo Pipeline - only two papers listed
 * - IMAGINE Photogrammetry - four papers listed
 * - OpenDroneMap - four papers listed
 * - PhotoModeler - 12 papers listed
 * Any suggestions gratefully received Pluke (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need the whole url; I've made your links internal links. Please see other stuff exists. It's likely that there are many articles on Wikipedia that do not meet current guidelines; this is not a reason to add more. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us.  We can only address what we know about. This process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it is generally not mandatory(except for new accounts, IP users, and those with a COI); there are many ways inappropriate articles can exist.
 * Notability is not inherited by association. The mere act of researchers using your company's product does not make it notable. If there is something unique about this software that caused it to be selected by researchers, we need independent reliable sources to state that(which would mean it couldn't be your company or the researchers themselves, but others discussing why the product was chosen and how it influenced research). 331dot (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that my opinion is my own, feel free to wait to hear from others. I think I'm correct, but maybe not. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks @331dot that's really useful. I'll see if I can find some articles with rationale for selecting the product / comparison with other products Pluke (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot it's probably me being dense here, but would you be able to give an example of a suitable reference for a smallish software product? Obviously firefox, Linux etc will have lots of books and news articles about them, but I'm struggling to think what would be suitable for a product like alicevision (if indeed anything would be suitable?!) Pluke (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Pluke somewhat of a side question but do you have any affiliation with software or the company? The reason I ask is you have submitted drafts/articles before relating to the same subject (i.e. Meshroom) and there have been a couple WP:SPA acccounts involved with Draft:AliceVision overlapping with you.  S0091 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pluke has already stated they are affiliated. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Scratch that, I had my wires crossed. I apolgize. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * definitely not affiliated :) Pluke (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't really give an example of that, as it's not a field I am deeply familiar with. It is true that Wikipedia sourcing requirements do result in some subject areas being underserved, areas that do not receive much attention in independent reliable sources. It's not just smallish software products.  Journalists is another area(as journalists do not often write about other journalists). However, these sourcing requirements are necessary for verification purposes. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic; it depends on the sources.  If the sources don't exist- unfortunately it means that the subject cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of journal articles mentioning alicevision (many as a key part of the researd), a healthy bunch of VFX/graphics press articles, and lots of universities providing courses with it. I just don't know which of these would make make it notable. I had a feeling that Notability_(software) wasn't official guidance? Pluke (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's only an essay, not policy. I don't know if there is an effort to establish it as policy. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @S0091 it's interesting you ask as someone else asked the same question on another thread. I have no link at all to the company, I've only downloaded their software. I believe the main contributor to this page was one of the developers, but I don't know them. You're correct I submitted Meshroom, I wrote a far inferior page a few months ago - I was curious as to why this rather popular tool didn't have a presence on wikipedia, so wrote a stub for it (as I used to do in the late 2000s) - but abandoned it when I found the far more complete Alicevision (the software behind meshroom). Pluke (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer @Pluke. Fair enough.  Given you are well-passed autoconfirm, if you disagree with the assessment you can move the draft to mainspace yourself.  The worst that would happen is it being nominated for WP:AFD but even so, that might get additional community input. S0091 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

14:33:22, 24 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared
Hello, I need to update most of these articles relating to seven HBO series that are involved in controversies since 2011, which are copied into this article, and include it's criticism. CastJared (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

14:57:46, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Adamsade22
I need help understanding why my draft was denied for publishing. I changed the language but need to know if the problem is with my sources? Adamsade22 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Adamsade22 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Adamsade22 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It reads like a poorly sourced personal CV. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

19:34:29, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Rwlove51
Rwlove51 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC) I have submitted a new article with references for consideration on a proposal that has been published by a prestigious law review and specifically mentioned in a US Congressional hearing and the "editors" are telling me it is "notable" enough for WP. Are they correct?

Rwlove51 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ... telling me it is NOT notable enough ... sorry. Rwlove51 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * its "The People's Ledger" a few lines above this ... still trying to understand navigation on your site Rwlove51 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this proposal. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I must beg to differ ... publication in the Vanderbilt Law Review is both reliable and notable.
 * Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually reading the references? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually reading the references? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, it was written by the originator of the proposal, meaning it is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think WP editors have failed to read their own documentation ...??? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand you may not wish to reverse your own decision ... so why not simply ask somebody else to look at this thread of comments ... AFTER they read the WP guidelines for what is considered "reliable". :-) Rwlove51 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to change my mind, but I don't see a reason to, nor did four other reviewers. You are free to roll the dice and place it in the encyclopedia yourself, this process is voluntary if you have no connection to the topic. If it is deleted according to a deletion discussion, though, it would be harder to recreate later. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is the law review which is independent of the author in cse you do not understand how that works ... your own definition of "reliable" says "published ... by well-regarded academic press." Rwlove51 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, that's only one source, and it would only allow you to write "This proposal was published by the Vanderbilt Law Review". We need at least three sources with significant coverage, that go into detail about why the subject is important or significant as the source sees it. The mere act of publishing the proposal does not tell us what Vanderbilt finds to be significant about it. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you following the guidelines or making them on your own? Please give me the link that suppoprts your position and I will review it carefully. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But I do think this needs an appeal to somebody "neutral" which is also a WP principle. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I'm not neutral, but this will remain open for others to comment. However, you might want to consider the greater experience of not necessarily me but the four reviewers who feel the same way.
 * You created your account in 2015, but except for two deleted edits immediately didn't have a single edit until a year ago about this topic. Do you have a connection to it? 331dot (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no connection ... however it is a frequent topic in the circles I am in ... and I was amazed that it was NOT covered by WP so that I did not hqve to explain it to everyone. The other "evidence" you listed is not relevant to this matter ... and I am sure you must realize that. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There were significant chnges as I progressed thru the other editors ... indeed that is the very purpose of editing ... we are down to a single issue ... and that is the one you and I are discussing ... does the Vanderbilt Law Review establish this subject as "notable" and the source as "reliable". Let's try to stay on point. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for the link that sets out the specific criteria you claim is required ... I gave you my link to WP's own policy statement ... please be so kind as to do the same for me. Rwlove51 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have put yourself in the position of asserting that Vanderbilt Law Review is not a "well-regarded academic press" that has "vetted" the work ... do you really want to take that position? Rwlove51 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing of the sort. I've said that the mere act of publishing her proposal does not tell us what they found to be significant about it. If vetting found it significant, we need to know how in order to say anything more than "they published it". Even if this wasn't an issue, that's still only one source. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a sixth reviewer telling you that it does not meet Wikipedia policies will help. Unless others are independently talking about the subject, it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. As for the initial paper, it doesn't matter how reputable the publisher is, the paper is still a primary source by the creator of the subject and so can not be used to satisfy notability. If others have cited and discussed the paper, those would be useable secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the problem was never the reliability of the Vanderbilt Law Review. The key here is independent; a published paper cannot be independent of its author, even if it is published in a peer reviewed journal with a very high impact factor. In addition, it is a primary source, and Wikipedia articles require secondary sources; please have a look at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. To show that the concept is notable, the draft has to cite independent, secondary sources. A primary, non-independent, reliable source can be used to verify specific facts (e.g. when a paper was published), but not to show notability. Note also that substantial parts of the draft are not supported by the sources provided. The purpose of a source in a Wikipedia article is to verify the information, not to provide further reading on a related topic. As an example, the claim (from the draft) Opponents see a people's ledger as an expansion of the current role and powers of central banks which should be judged as failed policy and decentralized. They claim a people's ledger would continue the process, begun with the Nixon Shock and accelerated with quantitative easing, of transforming the common currency from an impartial, apolitical social medium of exchange decentralizing economic and political power is not in fact supported by the citation that follows, this essay from 1958 by Ludwig von Mises.
 * Can I also ask you to improve the citations in the draft? As in an academic paper, the list of references in a Wikipedia article is supposed to include bibliographic information to make it possible for the reader to understand what the source is, without having to follow a link to some other website. A bare URL is not an acceptable citation, and while the VLR paper is easy enough to verify, the other paper (currently source 1, a bare URL linking to a pdf hosted at lpeproject.org) is unidentifiable even if you follow the link. It is clearly a draft version of a paper, but there's no bibliographic info about where the paper was to be published; a pre-publication version of an academic paper is usually not a useful source, and when we don't even know where the paper is from, it becomes even less so. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the Mises reference does not support my summary of the opponents position is YOUR OPINION. Although Mises does not reference The People's Ledger because he died long before it was written, he was a well known monetary authority who wrote extensively on the dangers of centralized finance which is what this is. His address referenced goes into the issue here in Part VI. You are putting WP editors in the position of judge of the relevance of references and that is about the same as other "media editing". Let the reader decide if it is relevant. It is NOT your position to judge.
 * I will continue my work ... because WP is worth the effort ... and I do appreciate volunteers ... I am one as well. But if WP continues to sanction this kind of quibbling about major works that are referenced in Congressional hearings and major Law Reviews, I can only conclude that WP has become an arbitrary at best and compromised at worst media ... and cease my participation. Sad. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the Mises reference should be used to expand on the Monetary authority or Central bank articles. It could be used to describe the history leading up to this proposal, but not to contribute to the notability of the proposal.  As for "let the reader decide if it is relevant"; that misunderstands what Wikipedia is. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information and ideas.  This is a curated encyclopedia that operates by consensus of its participants. If you disagree with that curation and are unable to persuade others you are correct, you are free to go out, purchase servers and internet access, and start your own global website with whatever criteria(or no criteria) you wish for inclusion. Now seven people have told you that you are in error- how many will it take to convince you that, maybe you are in error and the problem isn't us?  As I said above, you are free to roll the dice and place it in the encyclopedia yourself- but this discussion is a strong indicator that such a thing would not end well for you, and it would be harder to recreate this later if deleted by a discussion. I urge you to hear what we are saying and maybe consider that we might be correct and that this topic does not yet merit an article.  That doesn't mean it will never have one, just that it doesn't merit one right now. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you are telling me how to write the article ... I would never have suspected this. Your own system permits virtually any person to edit any article in anyway they wish ... "indiscriminate" is probably too weak a word to describe that policy.
 * But when it comes to new subjects, the editors form an ad hoc committee to control content.
 * You must see the inconsistencies and incoherence in this. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As to your insulting comment of "purchasing servers", who purchases yours? People like me in case you did not know. There is a saying in "sales" which WP editors should learn: "The customer is not always right, but he is NEVER wrong."
 * Your statement that WP is a "consensus" is totally misguided. It is NOT a consensus of what is reliable or notable ... there are rules for that. My article presented BOTH sides of the controversy.
 * And your conclusion that this topic does not merit an article is simply YOUR OPINION [all 7 of you] ... and unsupported by your own guidelines. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I was insulting there, I was quite serious. If you disagree with how we operate, you should go out and start your own website. And no, it is not true that "virtually any person" may "edit any article in anyway they wish".  if that's what you think, then you fundamentally misunderstand what we do here. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. And when a subject makes it into a US Congressional Hearing ... well that simply CRUSHES all your arguments about lack of notability. You have dug into the wrong defense ... and it would be best for you to learn something from this as well ... for the sake of WP which we ALL value. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment again reflects a total misunderstanding of what we do here and of notability. Something being discussed in a Congressional hearing is not a ticket to a Wikipedia article- if independent reliable sources report on the discussion of a topic in a Congressional hearing and discuss why that makes the topic important, then we can get somewhere. You seem to think that there mere act of a notable Law Review publishing someone's proposed idea merits that a Wikipedia article- this misunderstands notability and sources.  We're now approaching WP:IDHT territory since you are not being told what you want to hear. If you aren't going to listen to us, and think that everyone else is the problem and not you, there is no point to further discussion here. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand "independent". The law review IS independent and you cannot deny that. The fact that they published is reliable accoding to WP's own definitions and ANYTHING they publish is notable.
 * Furthermore, I am still waiting for 331dot to show me where WP states the criteria [s]he asserted: "three sources with significant coverage, that go into detail about why the subject is important or significant as the source sees it" ... so please provide the link to where WP states that in their policy for submissions.
 * As for Slywriter's argument about 6 editors ... that is a bandwagon fallacy which I am surprised to hear from such an august group of logicians. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#bandwagon ... you will do best if you stick to the facts and the written guidelines ... we can all share those which is the purpose of dialogue. Rwlove51 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, but you seem to have ignored it- Your First Article. There is no hard and fast number of sources required, but most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage of the topic to pass this process. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Continuing your argumentative style is not recommended. WP:CIVILITY is not optional. You have been told what the issue is. Your own belief of Wikipedia policy does not replace the decades of consensus that guides decisions here. Your choices are WP:DROPTHESTICK, provide secondary independent sources for further evaluation or move the article to mainspace yourself where it will almost certainly be subject to a deletion discussion. Slywriter (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

19:43:32, 24 January 2023 review of draft by ThatAnalystGuy
I am trying to add a wikipedia page for the school in which I work. 7 out of the 9 schools in our district have a wikipedia webpage and we would love to add to it. I am just not sure what else I am missing. I have added more references, but it still comes back.

ThatAnalystGuy (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you work for the school, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
 * Wikipedia does not have pages for schools, but articles about schools. It's entirely possible that those other 7 articles are inappropriate; in the distant past of Wikipedia, existence was sufficient to merit a school an article, but that is no longer the case. See other stuff exists.
 * An article about a school must not merely document its existence and tell its accomplishments. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable school. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not looking or receiving any compensation for the creation of this article of the school. I am using sources outside of the school for information on the school. What do I need to do in order for the article to be published? Thanks!