Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 22

= October 22 =

00:11, 22 October 2023 review of submission by TheCuratedConsumerJoshua
I am having trouble getting correct citation practices down. I have read and rearead, The guideline at WP:ILC and the tutorial is at WP:INTREFVE. I am still having some disconnect with creating the proper authoritative sources. If anyone has any advise or recommendations I would be very appreciative for the support! TheCuratedConsumerJoshua (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Wikipedia already has an article, Greetings Tour, which does not even mention the Bend mural. I fail to see why the Bend mural requires its own separate article when it can be mentioned in the main article. Your draft currently has eight references, and six of them do not even mention the Bend mural and are therefore of zero value in establishing the notability of the Bend mural. The other two are clearly based on press releases and interviews with the artists, and are therefore not independent sources and do not establish the notability of the Bend mural. I recommend that you abandon your draft, and instead focus your efforts on improving and expanding Greetings Tour, which has not had substantive content edits for several years. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

05:48, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Crystal S. Brown
What do I do to put my information out in the world? I am getting an error stating double gazing, prolimic??? Crystal S. Brown (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Crystal S. Brown: I rejected this draft, because it is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It starts with "How deeply is the overturning of Roe V. Wade going to affect women of color?" – posing a question like that is the hallmark of an essay. And it is polemic, arguing a particular point of view: "In closing, we as women, at the core should have the right to choose the decisions we make with our bodies."
 * You can express your opinions on any number of blogging, social media, etc. platforms. However, Wikipedia is not the place to "put [your] information out in the world". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I agree with DoubleGrazing. Your draft bears little resemblance to a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crystal S. Brown: I agree with DoubleGrazing and Cullen328. Surely, the plight of women of color (and all women) in the US is an important subject, but not here.  — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

06:27, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Jrmango
I have been trying to write this page, but people have said the sources don't meed the Notability guidelines, but I can't seem to find sources that can, and the wording is kind of unclear. Jrmango (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jrmango: what "people" have said that? It doesn't look like this has been reviewed, or have you made your previous attempts under a different account or IP? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and content like is completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors never address our readers directly. and never use the word "I" in Wikipedia's voice.  You need to provide references to independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the song itself, not coverage of the movie that the song is a part of. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an iencycolpedia is to give information to other people, so this would be helpful infformation that it would be very difficult to find sheet music for the song, so a person would not have to waste their time trying to look for it Jrmango (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia summarizes independent reliable sources; it doesn't merely provide information. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the Oxford Dictionary, an encycolpedia is "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.", and that definition says nothing about it summarizing anything. Jrmango (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the Five Pillars. It gives information to tell you Walmart has a sale on computers, but that is not valid encyclopedia content here. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, it has been reviewed Jrmango (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Can i have some help finding notable sources? Jrmango (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please keep discussion about this draft in this section. We can't find sources for you- it's up to you to have sources in hand before you attempt the difficult task of writing a new article. See WP:BACKWARD. If you are unable to find sources that show notability, the topic would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

12:50, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Jopje dropje
I've been rejected multiple times by the same moderator for "not going in-depth enough". i think this is completely false, as i've made the complete documentation, explaination on how to download / use and reerences to the only original source i could find. also, i quite literally have the original creator of the programming language and the writer of the only source of information (Github page) sitting right next to me reviewing what i do. there are no other resources i could possibly link, and i've quite literally listed all information there is Jopje dropje (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jopje dropje: firstly, from what I can see, it looks like the draft was declined once, resubmitted immediately without any improvement, and then rejected. Not sure that counts as "rejected multiple times".
 * This draft has no evidence that the subject is notable. And based on what you say, it seems that absence of evidence on this occasion really is evidence of absence. We don't want to hear what the developers or others closely associated with the subject have to say about it, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; GitHub meets none of those criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * then your system must be broken. i've quite literally made multiple changes to it after the first review, including a section going in-depth about the installation and what to do when you want to compile the source code. as for the significant coverage, pages like github are quite literally the only way to get significant coverage in the world of programming. Jopje dropje (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit history is as DoubleGrazing described. You have edited it since the rejection, too, but the history indicates you resubmitted it without changes prior to the rejection. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that some topic areas may be underserved due to a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, but this requirement is necessary for verifiability purposes and in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to summarize such sources, not what a topic says about itself. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable topics, not for writing about or promoting your own pet projects. KylieTastic (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * first of all, didn't wikipedia start off as a pet project? contracting nerds to do work for them without pay? second of all, how is an in-depth documentation about a sophisticated programming language, made by a team of people, considered "promoting"? an awnser would be much apreciated, although i am beginning to suspect you're just a troll Jopje dropje (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Jopje dropje. Firstly, please don't call @KylieTastic a troll. They are an experienced reviewer.
 * Wikipedia articles are not designed to simply state that a topic exists. You have GitHub or all the software listing sites for that. Instead, Wikipedia articles should paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary sources state about a topic. The independent part of that is really important: we don't want to see articles (like your draft) where the only source is a link to the project homepage. That isn't enough to establish notability under the WP:NSOFTWARE criteria.
 * For your draft to be acceptable, you'd need to include significant coverage of the software in those reliable, independent, secondary sources. Tech magazines, reviews, etc. If there are no sources like that then there can be no article, unfortunately.
 * I hope that helps make you understand how Wikipedia articles work. Let me know if you have any questions.  Qcne  (talk)  13:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * that's fine. i would like to know some sources considered "reliable, independent and secondary" that are actually related to the topic (programming languages). Jopje dropje (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jopje dropje Well, that's you to find as the author of the draft, but I would suggest as follows:
 * - Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of creation), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis, review, discussion, or interpretation.
 * - Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website, and not interviews with people directly connected to the topic.
 * - Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - From multiple places: Ideally we would like to see three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
 * - Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
 * Finally, your draft in it's current form also breaks the WP:NOTGUIDE, as it's really just a tutorial on how to install and use the software. That is appropriate for a README, but not Wikipedia!
 * I understand we have pretty strict rules and it can seem frustrating but it's the only way to ensure Wikipedia doesn't devolve into a self-promotional spammy SEO-farmed mess.  Qcne  (talk)  13:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't find sources for you. It's your topic. You should have the sources in hand first before attempting the difficult task of writing a new article. Perhaps you could find other articles about programming(preferably good ones) to see what is looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jopje dropje: when it's the makers of the software (or whatever) telling the world about their software (or whatever), that is by definition promoting - see WP:YESPROMO.
 * And let that groundless slur on KylieTastic be your last one. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

19:40, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Eboss09
How do I get it inclusive on wiki? and what would you suggest I improve on. Eboss09 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Eboss09, I have rejected your draft so there is nothing more you can do. It will not be considered further.  Qcne  (talk)  19:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)