Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 31

= January 31 =

07:51:20, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Prof. Sugarcube
In writing about this trial, the notability of the trial is secondary to my main goal of writing about the history of the Fordney Rifle, a variant of the Kentucky Rifle developed by the victim of this case. Unfortunately, the trial is not as covered by secondary sources as much as I hoped, but I have found passing mentions about this murder whenever a Fordney Rifle is sold at an auction house, or mentioned in gunsmithing websites/books/circles in regards to how the gunsmith died.

Mainly I ask for help on figuring out whether this article should be reformatted to talk about the gunsmith himself, rather than the murderer. I was originally intending on *both* articles to be made, so if it's possible to have two articles based on both Melchoir Fordney, the victim gunsmith (and thus talking about his manufacturer of Fordney Rifles) and John Haggerty the perpetrator (and thus relation to American legal history), that would be preferred. However, I'm unsure whether to guage the adequacy of a source in its relation to wikipedia, or additionally, where to find mentions of the trial in media that wasn't immediately archived on the net.

I did recently, however, find that the murder and trial was mentioned in the book Centennial, and featured (with wrong information) on the back of a collectible card in a set from Atlas Publications. It has also appeared in several then-contemporary newspapers but mainly as single paragraph mentions. I do wish to find out how to immortalize the context of the Fordney Rifle to Melchoir Fordney and the circumstances of his death, especially considering several high profile figures were part of the case (including Ellis Lewis who presided over the court). It seems as if there IS a story here of SOME notability but as I currently lack sources that mention in secondary nature about the trial, I am unable to apss Wikipedia's guidelines. So i ask, what would be the best method to find secondary sources of this trial? I don't particularly live in the US (where this murder occured) so there's an additional geographical barrier to overcome. Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

11:56:23, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Joyce wachira
I have allowed editors to assist in editing this article where i have not done as required especially on notability. Is it possible for the editors to edit my draft article to be fit for submission?

Joyce wachira (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannot grant or deny permission to others to edit any article or draft; anyone is welcome to edit. Your draft as is now is wholly unsuitable for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume or merely document someone's professional accomplishments.  A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
 * I see that you declared a conflict of interest; what is the nature of it? 331dot (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joyce wachira As 331dot says, anyone can edit the draft if they choose to.  The  "hosts" who answer questions here don't usually edit drafts, but they might.  Creating a new article is hard, and it's generally up to the article creator to bring it up to submission standard.  Have you read your first article (click here)? David10244 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

15:52:38, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Katiet838
Editors, I am trying to figure out what I can do to get this page published. The feedback I have gotten is that it needs more reliable sources. I have posted links to tweets by journalists, and to the nonprofit's independent listing on GuideStar, an accrediting body for nonprofits. Zenger House is an active nonprofit serving journalists, but there's not a lot out there on it, so I'm trying to figure out what I can do. Thanks!

Katiet838 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Tweets by journalists are not significant coverage of the topic, and have not been subjected to editorial control and fact checking. If as you say, there "is not a lot out there" on it, it likely does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about an organization like a nonprofit. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

18:01:57, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Gochyafx
Gochyafx (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just made a couple of edits hoping that the AJA page will pass. Third time lucky I hope!

Draft:AJA Video Systems

This company sells similar products so I formatted the above page like theirs.

Blackmagic Design

Please let me know what I need to do to make this better. Thanks!
 * I see you declared a COI, but I think you need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
 * Please see other stuff exists. Beware in using other articles as a model, as those too could be problematic and you wouldn't know this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles together by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been evaluated by the community.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

19:03:42, 31 January 2023 review of submission by 5.210.253.48
5.210.253.48 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Request on 19:09:13, 31 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Hekiti
I recently submitted an article for review but it was denied due to copyright problems.The information I used in the article was from my own dissertation. How can I allow myself to use my own intellectual propert in the article? Hekiti (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume this is about Draft:Agatha Cobourg Hodgins. Leaving aside the copyright issue, Wikipedia doesn't host original research. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

20:29:29, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Jamesjones2234
Jamesjones2234 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jamesjones2234 This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. David10244 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

21:43:05, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Cammur
Hi there. Two images were removed from my draft page for copyright violation. However, I have written permission from the owner of the images to use them on Wikipedia. How can I get them inserted back into my draft and make note that using these images are not in violation of copyrights?

Cammur (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-free images cannot be in drafts. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the sources and text. Don't worry about images until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cammur If the draft is accepted, you will learn that "written permission to use (images) on Wikipedia" is not sufficient.  There is a process for adding non-free images, but you can deal with that later. David10244 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

21:51:08, 31 January 2023 review of draft by 71.11.29.254
Hello, I am working on revising a draft that was declined; is there a time limit as to how long I can take to do that? And is there a certain number of times you can submit a draft for a particular page, as long as I keep trying to improve it? Thank you!

71.11.29.254 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only time limit is that inactive drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity(but even then can be restored). There is no hard limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted, but if you repeatedly resubmit without showing progress or hope of notability, it will eventually be rejected and ineligible for resubmission. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

22:05:25, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Mastercup
Hello, thank you for your message. Why the article does not comply with the requirements? What I sould do to correct it? Mastercup (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

23:57:07, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Hhbowie
It is not clear to me why this submission is being rejected. Reviewer is saying it is a notability question, and added a comment that "Articles need to be based on secondary sources."

The draft article currently cites 15 sources, and most of them are indeed secondary sources. Previous submissions were rejected because of a lack of in-depth sources, but I recently added a citation to a full-page review appearing in MacFormat/MacLive magazines. Since this is one of the few (if not only) print magazines left covering applications written for macOS, I'm not sure what else can be reasonably expected.

Hhbowie (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hhbowie Github is not a secondary source;  it's where the code is held. The app's own website is not secondary.  After you remove these references,  you need to find new references for the particular statements.   Or, remove the statements that were backed by these references. David10244 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I have removed the app's own website as a citation, and replaced that with a secondary source.
 * I understand that GitHub does not qualify as a secondary source. But Wikipedia's guidelines state that "'Primary' is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'. While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality [and] accurate.... I believe that my references to GitHub are valid, since I am only using them to establish a historical record showing the history of the application. Hhbowie (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hhbowie That's fine for Github, but there need to be enough additional secondary sources to establish that the software is "worthy of note" to a broad audience: that it's not just ordinary software.  It is in the pile to be re-reviewed now. David10244 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Hhbowie (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)