Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 2 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 4 >
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.


December 3

[edit]

06:14, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Abhayamohanty

[edit]

after repeated submission it's declined Abhayamohanty (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhayamohanty: that's correct. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated submissions does not mean it will be accepted. You need to actually improve the article first Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Abhayamohanty

[edit]

can i resubmit the draft 

Abhayamohanty (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has been rejected. It has no sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Ajeesh Sudhakar

[edit]

Hadn't the draft been sounding from a neutral point of view. Can you help with which portion it is the otherwise. Ajeesh Sudhakar (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have just summarized the routine activities of the company, not significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources that shows how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 3 December 2024 review of submission by RJClark1447

[edit]

Note: This question and the associated submission should be read by someone who considers him/herself an expert in international limited overs cricket. I have submitted an outline of my method for calculating targets and results in limited overs cricket matches interrupted (by rain), The Clark Curves, which was used for all cricket in South Africa from 1995 - 1998. This has been rejected for lack of references. I have cited 16 references made up of printed material, website material and famous international cricketers. I’m afraid that I can do no more than that. The current system in use (as specified by the ICC) is the Duckworth Lewis Stern method. The application of this method has been fraught with controversy. During the 2003 Cricket World Cup, it was invoked 5 times in very different circumstances. All 5 were controversial and the method was hammered in the media. At the end of the tournament Frank Duckworth wrote a 5 page explanation defending his method. “Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much” (Ref: William Shakespeare). I have a copy of Dr. Duckworth’s protest note if you’d like to see it. Steven Stern has (secretly) improved much of Duckworth/Lewis’ original, inaccurate data bringing, what is now his method, much closer to my 1995 original (first published 3 seasons before the DLS). However, my correspondence with Steven indicates that some of the fundamental tenets of the system e.g. the treatment of wickets, will never be corrected so, sooner or later, there will be another controversial calculation at a crucial time.

My objective in having the Clark Curves available on Wikipedia, before I die, is that when the ICC finally comes to its senses, another method is readily available. You may or may not have heard of my method (if you are old enough) but it was invoked in numerous ODIs in South Africa between 1995 and 1998. It was not discussed widely in the newspapers since none of the calculations was controversial and it would have continued to have been used in South Africa after 1999 had the ICC not imposed their preferred method on all member nations. I am aware that my method has weaknesses and I have done my best to correct them (my system is flexible enough to allow minor tweaks). Having the details available on Wikipedia would allow a wider discussion of the merits and demerits of both systems. Specifically, what must I do to meet with your requirements?

By the way, what is currently published on Wikipedia about the Duckworth Lewis system is way out of date. It is completely inaccurate and wildly misleading. Nobody could use it to accurately calculate a target in any circumstances. Unfortunately Steven Stern is unlikely to give you any more information since he is keeping his data secret from the general public. RJClark1447 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJClark1447 you don't need to be an expert to see that the "Wickets" and "Unresolved Problems" are almost completely unsourced. Where is this information coming from? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RJClark1447 (ec) You cannot demand that only experts in cricket or cricket analysis interact with you. Aside from such people being present here is unlikely, Wikipedia is (mostly) written by lay people for lay people. If your work meets the criteria for inclusion, anyone will be able to see that. Please see WP:EXPERT. If you would prefer a project where only experts are permitted to contribute, those exist out there.
I apologize for being frank but Wikipedia is not a place to merely store information that you hope will be used to influence the sport of cricket in the future by its governing body. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic with significant coverage, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. If you do not have proper references available, this topic cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RJClark1447: you say My objective in having the Clark Curves available on Wikipedia, before I die, is that when the ICC finally comes to its senses, another method is readily available. As explained above, Wikipedia is not the right place for that, per this policy. Why not use one of the many platforms available for publishing original thoughts? Wikipedia:Alternative outlets lists some of these. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly one of the more interesting cases I've come across on this forum lately. :)
The only thing I would add is that it might be worth flagging this up at WP:WikiProject Cricket, where folks much more knowledgeable about cricket than yours truly (which really is not setting the bar very high!) congregate; for interest, if nothing else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 151.135.89.184

[edit]

What i need to do more to get it approved 151.135.89.184 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 2401:1900:2081:ECB1:0:0:0:1

[edit]

Imtiaz Ahmed is a famous actor. I found his personal information . 2401:1900:2081:ECB1:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Wikipedia is not a mere host of information; articles must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the subject with significant coverage, showing(in this case) how they meet the definition of a notable actor. IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for block evasion, the account that created the draft is blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 87.116.164.146

[edit]

Hi, we've been waiting two months for a review of our draft. How can we speed up the review on the music band page? 87.116.164.146 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to speed up the process; please be patient. This process is entirely volunteer-driven, and drafts are reviewed in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Qualitybeginshere

[edit]

I am a newbie in Wikipedia and want to add our company details in Wikipedia. Obviously, I am not the owner of the company, but working for the company and want to list on Wikipedia. Addii Biotech was founded in 2010 and continue working in the field of pharmaceuticals.

I need guidance to approve our Listing on Wikipedia. I have received declines, but need guidance to improve and submit it again. Qualitybeginshere (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitybeginshere First, you must comply with the Terms of Use-required paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure on your user page. I'll post more about this on your user talk page.
Wikipedia is not the place to do what you are attempting to do. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to "list" themselves. This is not a database of things that exist. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, what we call notability, such as a notable company. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is notable. You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company, which does not establish notability. You need to instead summarize what others have chosen to say about your company and how it is important/significant/influential as a company. I get that you think what your company does is important, but we only are interested in if others say what they see as important about it. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted there back in February. Please follow those instructions as soon as possible. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Marzada

[edit]

My submission was declined November 7th 2024 by Tesleemah with the request to "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources and to rewrite the submission in a more encyclopedic format."

However the draft does have a total of 8 external references and 6 weblink from independent, reliable, published sources.

Also the style has been adapted from other Wikipedia entries, so I struggle to understand what EXACTLY I need to change in order to resubmit. Marzada (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzada I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The Espionage section is entirely unsourced. Part of the escape section is, too. If existing sources support that information, you need to place the references in with the text. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

[edit]

this is a page for an indian punjabi artist called alfaaz ,as i created this page broader info about artist and i even added a references geniune articles about artist which suited for page acceptance Adityaksingh409 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have a single source(and it's a source of questionable quality(see WP:TOI) and you have not demonstrated that this person meets WP:NSINGER. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 3 December 2024 review of submission by JAC2222

[edit]

This is a real news source in Columbus Ohio JAC2222 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts that it is real- but your draft is completely unsourced; any article about this news outlet must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. You haven't done that and the prospect of that happening seems low, so it was correctly rejected. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

This is my second time submitting my draft, may I ask if there is a limit to how many times a draft can be declined? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thehistorianisaac: no, there is no limit, as such. As long as you keep making progress in addressing the decline reasons, we will keep reviewing. If, however, you're just resubmitting without even trying to improve things, or it starts to look like the draft hasn't any realistic chance of being accepted, then it will likely be rejected. So it's more about progress and prospects, rather than number of reviews. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Weasleyrian

[edit]

To @Bonadea

I respectfully request a reconsideration of the rejection notice for the SmarterMail draft. According to Wikipedia's Notability (Software) guidelines, computer programs are classified as creative works. Based on these criteria, I believe SmarterMail merits inclusion as it meets the necessary notability standards:

Discussion in Reliable Sources: SmarterMail has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, demonstrating its relevance and significance in the technology landscape. Wide Adoption Across Various Sectors: SmarterMail is widely used in universities, medical facilities, and government institutions as a primary source of communication. This broad utilization highlights its importance and reliability in critical sectors. Third-Party Documentation and Reviews: SmarterMail has been referenced in third-party manuals and subjected to reviews from reliable sources, further validating its notability. Presence in Scholarly and Published Literature: Searches conducted on Google Books and Google Scholar reveal numerous mentions of both SmarterMail and SmarterTools, underscoring its documented presence in academic and professional contexts. Recognition in Non-English Wikipedia Articles: SmarterMail and SmarterTools have been referenced in several non-English Wikipedia articles, including:


Additionally, SmarterTools is referenced in the Microsoft Windows server section of the MTA Software List, further demonstrating its relevance and application. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_mail_transfer_agents)

These points align with Wikipedia's standards for notability and inclusion, and I kindly urge you to reevaluate the draft based on this information. SmarterMail's widespread adoption, reliable documentation, and presence in scholarly and published works collectively support its eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering this appeal. I am happy to provide further information or references if needed. Weasleyrian (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weasleyrian: We do not consider existing articles in other languages of Wikipedia to have any effect on notability. Each is its own community with its own standards for notability. We also will not consider requests made via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "We also will not consider requests made via chatbot"? Weasleyrian (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weasleyrian, your entire post from "I respectfully request" to "I am happy to provide" is AI-generated. I guess the ChatBot you're using doesn't know that what happens on other wikis is meaningless here, but now you can say you learned something about Wikipedia. Also, "SmarterMail and SmarterTools have been referenced" is really unclear. "Referenced"? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weasleyrian Where are the "multiple reliable sources" that discuss "SmarterTools"? Nothing else you mention contributes to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go!
  • López-Collar, R. 2015). Extension of the security module for the REKO Data Replicator. University of Computer Sciences. Thesis
  • Morales Vizuete, M.V. (2015). Integration of free distribution tools to perform technical support tasks for an Internet service provider. Quito:EPN. Thesis
  • Rashid, F. (2013). SmarterMail Review. PC Magazine.
  • Perschke, S. (2012). 6 Free Email Servers for A Small Business Compared. NetworkWorld Magazine.
  • Schiller, J. (2009). Visual Basic Express and JAVA Programs: Excel Weekly Options Trading, CreateSpace. Book
  • Hong, B. (2008). Building a Server with FreeBSD 7: A Modular Approach No Starch Press. Book
  • Elsagheer Mohamed, S.A. (2013). Efficient Spam Filtering System Based on Smart Cooperative Subjective and Objective Methods. Objective Methods. DOI: 10.4236/ijcns.2013.62011 Weasleyrian (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have those books to hand, do they contain significant in-depth coverage of Smarter Tools? Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do have in-depth coverage of SmarterMail, I did add them as a reference to another article, but my account was flagged by Drmies and marked it as "vandalism". Weasleyrian (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And were they at any point cited in this draft? If not, why not? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited, but changed around as I was working on the draft. I clicked "submit" thinking it would save, hence the multiple revisions. I was working with another user who was quite helpful sifting through the sources to determine if they're "reliable" or not. I send that user the list with no responses, then out of no where the draft was rejected. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not allowed to use phrases like "respectfully request" or "happy to provide" in an appeal? Is it wrong to write in a respectful tone? Also, it's quite an assumption on your part to think I'm using a chat-box. Remember the risks of making assumptions. Addressing Jéské Couriano's comment: I understand that other languages operate independently, but my point remains that the SmarterMail draft meets notability requirements because (1) it is widely used and (2) I was able to find sufficient reliable sources to for the article. These factors formed the basis of my appeal to the rejecting user, Bonadea. Other users advised me to make this appeal to Bonadea directly. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "widely used" confers zero notability and you haven't told us what the "sufficient reliable sources" are yet so nobody can make a judgement. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to assume anything: I just ran your post through GPTZero. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that GPTZero isn’t perfect, right? The results should be taken with a grain of salt and considered as part of a bigger picture when assessing content authenticity. That said, no, I didn’t use a ChatBox like you assumed, so I think an apology is in order. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited about no other topic, and you seem to have a strong personal investment in it. Do you have a connection with this topic? 331dot (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I do not. Long story short, I am a computer science student at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona. As an assignment, our professor challenged us to write a Wikipedia article about small software products out in the market. I had no idea how difficult this would be, now I am seeing why it was more of a "challenge". The only investment I get is a grade :) Yes, I know, other editors mentioned that the professor should've directed me to an assignment page and I jumped to the chance without fully understanding the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia's guidelines. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry that your professor has put you in a difficult position; it is a poor assignment to give you to require you to write an article and have it accepted. Your professor may wish to examine the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons and assignments that are less likely to put students in this position. This is a particularly poor assigment, as "small software products" most likely do not draw the coverage needed to merit a Wikipedia article- as you are finding out the hard way. Feel free to show your professor this message and discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was all pointed out to the user on their talk page on 19th November. perhaps they need to find another "small software product". Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: I didn't use an LLM detector, and I could tell it was chatbot-generated because it includes a fair amount of redundant text/arguments and uses <topic>:<argument>-style writing typical of LLM output we see on Wikipedia. If you don't want to be accused of using a chatbot, don't write like one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think Wesleyrian is using an LLM here, but it's definitely true that what we might call "LLM style" is picked up by humans – I actually had my Masters students do a pilot study on this at a seminar a few days ago. And when humans use the same stylistic features, that creates a feedback loop in the input to LLMs... anyway, I digress. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: I clicked "submit" thinking it would save Well, what happened when you clicked "submit" was that the draft was placed in the pool of drafts waiting for review. The review happened almost 12 hours later, so it is not really "out of nowhere" – you'd made a few edits to the draft after submitting it, but not added any other sources or any information that indicated notability for the software. In addition, given the number of times you had submitted both this and other drafts for review, it wasn't unreasonable to assume that you were aware of how that process works. An article about the company that developed the software has been deleted for lack of notability, which makes it less likely (on the face of it) that the software itself is notable.
If the submission was indeed a mistake, the best thing you can do now is to edit the draft (as long as you don't remove the Articles for Creation notices) and when you believe that notability is shown in the draft, post another note here.
About the sources you post above: a thesis (I assume those are PhD theses?) is sometimes but not always possible to use (see this info), and CreateSpace is a self-publishing platform so that book can't be used. The NetworkWorld source does not provide any significant coverage, and "Efficient Spam Filtering System Based on Smart Cooperative Subjective and Objective Methods" mentions SmarterMail once, in a list of 24 mail servers. I can't comment on the other sources at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and the "Efficient Spam Filtering System..." source is from a journal published by a predatory publisher (Scientific Research Publishing), so it shouldn't be used even if it had had any info about SmarterMail. --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Divnanoc

[edit]

Declined submission. On 29 November 2024 Jannatulbaqi was declined submission of article “Frederick Charles Cooper” (an English artist of XIX century). The explanation was: “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)”. At the same date the article about the Subject was successfully published in Russian part of Wikipedia where the editors considered the same sources sufficiently competent and authoritative.

Small summary about the Subject and the References. The Subject was: (i) an English artist of XIX century, one of so called “the lost names” in fine arts; (ii) was the full member of Royal Academy of Arts; (iii) had a several exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and other significant places in London, England; (iv) more than fifty of his works are stored and exhibits in the British Museum; (v) was the only painter who drew the process, monuments and other heritage from one of the famous archaeological expeditions in the history of Great Britain.

The References. The “significant coverage” of the Subject supports by: (i) John Curtis (*ref. 3), who was a Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum 1989-2011, and presently Chief Executive Officer of the Iran Heritage Foundation, President of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq, and a Trustee of the Honor Frost Foundation; (ii) Algernon Graves (*ref. 5), an author of the most completed encyclopedia of British artists arisen or graduated from Royal Academy; (iii) Huon Mallalieu (*ref. 9), one of the world's leading and respected art historians, author of “Dictionary of British Watercolour Artists up to 1920”; (iv) Sir Austen Henry Layard, who was an English Assyriologist, traveller, cuneiformist, art historian, draughtsman, collector, politician and diplomat. Plus a few sources with lesser known, but no less reputable, backgrounds.

Could anyone to clarify me please (because I still have no reply of Mr. Jannatulbaqi) what coverage is could be more significant than coverages of two leading encyclopedists and the world`s most important specialist in this area? 

Divnanoc (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc: there are two ways to demonstrate the notability of an artist, either by
  • the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, or
  • the special WP:ARTIST one, which requires significant career achievements and impact.
Please study both guidelines and decide which one you are able to meet, then provide the evidence to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My arguments based on the rules of WP:ARTIST
  1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Frederick Charles Cooper is widely cited by scientists and/or art historians, especially in connection of excavations at Kuyunjik and Nimrud, exploration of the lost cities of Assyria and Iraq. Sir Austen Henry Layard, who led the British Assyrian expedition of 1849-51, acknowledged the artist`s role, writing in his 1853 book Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon that the "assistance of a competent artist was most desirable, to portray with fidelity those monuments which injury and decay had rendered unfit for removal...". John Curtis, the longtime Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum, described Layard's relationship with F. C. Cooper and his other artists (In Ermidoro, Stefania; Riva, Cecilia (eds.). — Venice, Italy: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2020. — ISBN 978-88-92990-00-5) as very complicated, but productive. Huon Mallalieu, the leading art historian, dedicated to artist an article in his The dictionary of British watercolour artists up to 1920 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Antique Collectors' Club, 1986. — ISBN 978-1-85149-036-3). Algernon Graves in "The Royal Academy of Arts: a complete dictionary of contributors and their work from its foundation in 1769 to 1904" (1-st edition. (англ.). — London: Henry Graves & Co. and George Bell and Sons, 1905. — P. 146) also mentioned Cooper, as notable painter of the epoch.
  2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Is a subjective definition. Some of the fine art specialists saw his own manner in such works like "Souvenir". The art historian H.L. Mallalieu wrote in his dictionary that "Cooper's landscapes are effective, but his figures can be rather shaky...". Personally, i find it like not as good enough to talk about unique or specific technique somehow, but somebody may have the different point. By the way, Picasso borrowed a lot of his technique, but this is not decreasing his significance.
  3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". The were significant and very unique work called Diorama of Nineveh exhibited in London in 1851. The full and detailed description can be found in a book of William Shoberl (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Diorama_of_Nineveh.html?id=U6ULPAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y).
  4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". The only fact that British Museum has about 50 Cooper`s works in their permanent collection provides an evidence of significance (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG177486).
Divnanoc (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If the Russian-language version of Wikipedia has published an article on this artist is either up to them, and has no bearing on whether we will publish one here on the English-language one, since each language version is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know and agree. But there was also discussion how to define "significance" of the Subject, if it is already defined and confirmed by one of the heading keepers of British Museum, for example. Divnanoc (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well. It starts to look ridiculous. There is still no good hint where and when the English artist of XIX century with numerous exhibitions, sufficiently collected by British Museum, presented in the primary, secondary, thirdly...sources supported by leading specialists, lost his "significance" and how to return it. Help, please! Divnanoc (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the draft requires some editing for neutral/dry tone I would be happy to accept this if it was re-submitted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just going to say the same. In fact, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, and a couple of reviewers have suggested this could be notable. So not sure what is "looking ridiculous" here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind attention. The text is dried (maximum as I could). Re-sumbitted. Divnanoc (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Mongoltuurgataninfo

[edit]

I want to make this article for future searches and ensure it can be updated with new information over time. Please help me with advise. Mongoltuurgataninfo (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for this draft. Social media and YouTube are not acceptable sources. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about people that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Researchclari

[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask for help understanding which sources in this draft are not considered reliable. Thank you! Researchclari (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the organization. Is that the case? 331dot (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the References list (without looking into the sources themselves) suggests to me that many of them are not independent of the association. That is a criterion which nearly as important as reliability. (Specifically, all sources must be reliable, and most of them - and in particular, all of those on which the claim of notability is to rest - must be independent.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_3&oldid=1261991512"