MyWiki:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Archive header with {{subst:Archive header.

{| width = "100%"

|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Help desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < September 11 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Aug | September | Oct >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current help desk > |}

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.


September 12

[edit source]

02:16:29, 12 September 2017 review of submission by Yeshal9000

[edit source]


this is more confusing than quantum mechanics... i am now frustrated and discouraged. all i wanted to do was make a small contribution so a good friend could be credited for his life long work. yeah i am not a writer, I guess this forces me to hire someone to do it. I cant even find a way to put it back in the sandbox so i can fix it.

@Yeshal9000: Hello, Yeshal9000. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The reviewer who expressed concern about copyright violations was very explicit as to the original sources that were copied. For example, you did not simply cite the biographical sketch found at http://www.christimbersmusic.com/about/ -- you actually copied portions of the text. This is against Wikipedia's rules. Hiring someone to do it for you, without proper disclosure will result in the article being deleted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 03:12:59, 12 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yeshal9000

[edit source]


please delete my account and all associated data. I plan to never return to this place again. I sent and email requesting the same thing to info-en@wikimedia.org non of my content is of any use to anyone. much less is this place for a common person.


Yeshal9000 (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yeshal9000: See Wikipedia:Delete account. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

03:29:14, 12 September 2017 review of submission by TerungwaSamuel

[edit source]

Based on comment by Swister Twister on August 30,2017 I have edited this article to address the issue of reference formatting which are easily verifiable by clicking each reference to establish notability for inclusion in encyclopedia with many citations independent of the subject as found especially on peer review journals on references 2,3 and other high impact peer review journal including references 4,5,6,7 and 15. Based on comment by jmcgnh the best three references were selected from reference 6 citation as follows:


1.Synthesis and Characterizations of Highly Fluorinated Poly(arylene ether)s for Quadratic Nonlinear Optics Khaled Aljoumaa, Yinghua Qi, Jianfu Ding and Jacques A. Delaire Macromolecules 2009 42 (23), 9275-9288 Abstract | Full Text HTML | PDF | PDF w/ Links

2.Langmuir−Blodgett Films of Preformed Polymers Containing Biphenyl Groups Frank Davis, Philip Hodge, Richard H. Tredgold, and Ziad Ali-Adib Langmuir 2005 21 (20), 9199-9205 Abstract | Full Text HTML | PDF | PDF w/ Links

3.Cross-Linkable Highly Fluorinated Poly(Arylene Ether Ketones/Sulfones) for Optical Waveguiding Applications Yinghua Qi, Jianfu Ding, Michael Day, Jia Jiang, and Claire L. Callender Chemistry of Materials 2005 17 (3), 676-682 Abstract | Full Text HTML | PDF | PDF w/ Links

Can you all take a look before my re-submission?

TerungwaSamuel (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm unable to read those three references, the discussion may need to be carried on by someone who has appropriate access.
It's still unclear to me which part of WP:NPROF you are depending on to establish notability. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I bet we are supposed to notify editors of responses here: @TerungwaSamuel: That may be better than expecting them to check back on their own. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: That's what the TB button is for :) jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
jmcgnh, TerungwaSamuel and SwisterTwister I'm afraid an AFD some weeks ago has determined that the subject is not notable. No article about him is possible, unless he does something really significant such as winning a major prize such as the Nobel or becomes the head of a department at a major university. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution dodger67, in which you linked worthy contributors as SwisterTwister and jmcgnh. Be reminded of the criteria for notability academics in wikipedia as follows: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.

  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
  9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art..."

As you can see from above,"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable". In the case of the subject, the first criterion is the focus "1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books".

As in the article of the subject, in the reference section amongst others, the citations came from highly impact peer reviewed scholarly publications such as journals and academic books. Based on your comment to me, you based your contribution on item 2 and 5 out of the nine(9) criteria in which only ONE is required to prove notability. Based on the fact that only ONE criterion is required to prove notability,the subject's article proves item ONE(1) as stated above from verifiable, reliable, peer reviewed journals and academic book. Based on these facts above, undeleting the article is requested with much appreciation. Thanks.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)TerungwaSamuel (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Further, thank you dodger67 for sending this issue to primefac to review. Based on that review by primefac as in your talk page dodger67 among other things, primefac stated clearly"I can't find anything other than the three press releases found in the draft, indicating a lack of notability". This further supports the view that notability has been established therefore undeleting the article is requested and appreciated.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of statement. The "other than three press releases" is attached to "I can't find anything other than", and the "indicating a lack of notability" is the result of not finding anything. I do not endorse undeletion (nor do I strictly oppose it, but I have a feeling the draft will just end up at MFD if it's resurrected). Primefac (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying the several peer review journals with several citations and academic book as in reference section does not meet the criterion 1 under criteria notability academics as stated above as there are nine of them, and only one needs to be proved?

23:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

23:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Ejembi12 (talk)

Let me give you some examples of citations from peer review journal on references 6 and 7 as in the subject article:


Ejembi12 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I hope with the pasting of these citations out of many many citations of the subject independent of the subject from peer review journals, notability as been established: Be aware also that the subject is leading nano initiative covering 189 countries and oversee a nano academy covering 189 countries with several nobel laureates as members with all global nano leaders as also members. Academies oversee universities and all such institutions, so such a leading position as chair of an academy is more than a chair of any university be it Harvard or Cambridge university.

11:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ejembi12 (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all of you; dodger67, Swister Twister, Primefac and Jmcgnh, etc as the request for undeletion is being awaited as we work together to improve the article further when the undeletion is approved 68.175.131.44 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

07:04:44, 12 September 2017 review of submission by 47.29.28.165

[edit source]

Request on 07:21:49, 12 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nayan008

[edit source]


Nayan008 (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

why my nilkanthvarni mobile articles dose not submit
FYI, the OP has been indeffed as an advertising only account. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

15:18:22, 12 September 2017 review of submission by 68.133.7.24

[edit source]


Creation of the page as a "notable" entry is justified because it is the only full-time NASCAR publication currently active. The other publications listed in the "NASCAR publications" category are all out-of-print, or not purely NASCAR magazines.

Hi IP editor. That is not how Wikipedia evaluates the notability of topics. To be notable, there should be multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain a significant depth of coverage about the subject. Essays Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) contain further relevant advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

15:41:47, 12 September 2017 review of submission by Cmljones

[edit source]


Draft:C._Michial_Jones

Hello I submitted the Article and it was rejected due to citations, I have added several additional citations (34, so far), but was wondering what else I could do to get the article accepted and to make it better

Thank you

@Cmljones: Hi, Sulfurboy has left new feedback on the article. Please ask if you have any more questions. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

15:48:31, 12 September 2017 review of submission by MariaSolodova

[edit source]

Hello, thank you very much for this opportunity to ask a couple of questions. 1. Can you please tell me how can I change the draft article name? there is one letter missing now in the name CoRnell- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emerging_markets_institute_at_Conell

2. Can you please check the current draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emerging_markets_institute_at_Conell - maybe I have to change something else in the article while I'm waiting for the review?

Thank you for your time!

MariaSolodova (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MariaSolodova I fixed the title and did a review. Unfortunately I had to remove a few passages of text that were directly copied from the subject's own website. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

20:47:06, 12 September 2017 review of submission by Professor1938

[edit source]

I submitted a revised draft for review on August 2. I've received no reply, and in early September even got a notice that my draft had been flagged for deletion, even though I'd made edits and submitted a new draft for review. Please let me know ASAP when I can expect to hear back about this revision. I've taken the time to go through and add numerous source citations to address the reasons for the first decline, so I am really hoping this revision works.

Professor1938 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Professor1938. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the draft would be reviewed in the next few days. It's difficult to be precise because we're all volunteers here, and volunteers work when they feel like it, on whatever they feel like working on. If you're concerned about backlogs, consider chipping in and helping to reduce one. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to participate. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 23:11:13, 12 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tunumiah

[edit source]

Hi, I recently submitted an article but it was rejected. Not sure the reason why it was rejected.

Tunumiah (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tunumiah. According to your talk page, User:Tunumiah/sandbox was declined for publication, and deleted, for being promotional. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. I suggest you write about a different subject, one that you have no stake in; Wikipedia has more than five million to choose from, nearly all of which could be improved. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)