Help desk
< November 10	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 12 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 11

02:14:30, 11 November 2022 review of submission by 174.27.66.83

174.27.66.83 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Windows 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

174.27.66.83 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Why did you reject this page? Why do you think that this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL? This is a page with refs and you are serious? Okay, please answer.[reply]

As it has been explained, this fails Wikipedia's crystal ball policy. Nothing about Windows 12 has been confirmed, and it is all based on rumours. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:26:49, 11 November 2022 review of submission by WikiHow0

WikiHow0 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mesotired6969 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel like this is still capable of being accepted WikiHow0 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHow0: No, this subject is not notable. Please do not attempt to resubmit again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you got it, sorry for resubmitting it. WikiHow0 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:48:06, 11 November 2022 review of submission by Septemberam1988

Septemberam1988 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Digav Aaditya Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Septemberam1988 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also help me to write an article about Digav Aaditya Singh Rajput.

@Septemberam1988: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You resubmitted without making any significant changes, and none of the references in the draft establish notability. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:42, 11 November 2022 review of submission by LRExpertsen

LRExpertsen (talk · contribs)

Get my article published - How to improve references?

Hello. I wrote the following article (Sandbox), but Wikipedia declined its publication. It is about LatamReady, a solution provider company of Oracle NetSuite ERP.

Wikipedia declined it because the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia Article. In the message, they say the sources don't have 1)in-depth, 2)reliable, 3)secondary, or 4)independent.

However, I edited the article by adding new well-known references such as New York Times and The Guardian, but Wikipedia rejected the article.

LRExpertsen (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LRExpertsen You have gotten a reply at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance at a time, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LRExpertsen You are now on your third warning for potential WP:UPE. The question is a mandatory question. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:40, 11 November 2022 review of submission by Technologysam

Technologysam (talk · contribs)

Hello! I wrote a userspace draft about the new splatoon 3 idols, (similar to Pearl and Marina). It was declined when I sent it through the AfC process. From what I understand, it is a sourcing issue. I have a few questions:

I assume that the article does not have enough sources to be published, is that the issue?
I also wonder if the Newsweek article I used as a source is reliable. I saw on the "Perennial sources" list that after 2013 the articles that they had published had a little more clickbate, I am wondering if the one i linked to is good or not.

Btw, The article is at Draft:Shiver, Frye, and Big Man Thanks a lot for your help! -Technologysam (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Technologysam (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@technologysam: you need at least 2 or 3 sources, not just 1. lettherebedarklight〔晚安おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:05:56, 11 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Arosa

Arosa (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Proebsting's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two editors believe the draft might merit to be an article but that it's incomplete. I believe it merits to be an article. Can it be moved somewhere so others can add more to it? It would be wasteful to let it die so somebody else has to start all over. Arosa (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arosa: there is nowhere better to move this to than the draftspace, which is the preferred location for drafts in development. It has been tagged with the WikiProject Computer science template; feel free to tag it with other relevant ones, if any, in case that draws some more attention to it. But ultimately the onus is on the draft creator to create a viable article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arosa, this has circulated mostly through internal publications (Microsoft) and self-published papers. There aren't enough reliably published sources for an article. Consider incorporating it into the Compiler article. Make sure what you are saying is correct. The law is about compilers. What supports your leading statement that the law is a rule of thumb in computer science that says that programmer time spent on optimization might be misspent. I don't see that in the sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma @DoubleGrazing

I'm certain I'm misformatting this reply and botching this procedure. Does this link count as not internal and not self published? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/900525 If so, can one of you add it? Arosa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arosa, no. It is just a link to the abstract, with no information on how to even locate the paper, not a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal. It is just Technical Report CS-2001-12 from his department of Computer Science. Think about how to make this an article of several paragraphs, or a section of another article with a redirect to it, not just a definition. It would be better to start with a short section in Compiler or Optimizing compiler. You may have missed the important point about the law, which is not that optimizing might not be worth it - in the world of embedded programming it is terribly important - but that Proebsting is making the point: "Perhaps programmer productivity is a more fruitful arena." Try searching in Google Books for sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma no, I did not miss the point, but I agree my summary misses it. This law says that the progress on compiler efficacy is very slow. That's actually the useful tidbit. I agree it would fit on the "optimizing compiler" article. I'll let it expire. Perhaps you can move this there. Cc0 jic. Arosa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]