NaneNeu

Your submission at Articles for creation: DiVA (Academic archive online) (May 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NaneNeu! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DiVA (Academic archive online) (May 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DiVA (Academic archive online) (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DiVA (Academic archive online) (November 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:DiVA (Academic archive online), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

NaneNeu (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)== DiVA, and conflict of interest? ==

Hi NaneNeu, I noticed that you have created a draft about DiVA, and that here you mention "our content" and say that "we have millions of downloads also from other people". That makes me wonder whether you are affiliated with the DiVA consortium/management in any way? In case you have such an affiliation, you should read up on the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, and if you have a professional connection to DiVA, you are required to comply with this policy. Please read through that and post the required disclosure on your user page. If you have any questions about how to do that, you can use the Wikipedia Teahouse, or post a question on this user talk page.

Regarding DiVA itself, I tend to agree that it is notable, but as a Swedish academic (I work as a senior lecturer at UU) I am perhaps a bit biased in its favour. However, I can understand why the draft has been declined so far: every Wikipedia article should be based on reliable, secondary, and independent sources; primary sources (such as DiVA itself) can be used to verify certain uncontroversial facts, but to show notability, what is required is secondary sources that are independent of the topic. They do not have to be journalistic sources, they can certainly be scholarly publications, but they do have to be secondary and independent, and they need to specifically discuss the topic – they can't be about some other subject and just mention the topic in passing. Currently, the draft has the following sources:

1. DiVA itself – very much a primary source.
2. A paper by Stefan Andersson and Aina Svensson, in Information Services & Use; that's a peer-reviewed publication so I believe it is a reliable source, but the authors are part of the DiVA consortium, so it is not an independent source.
3. A directory listing for DiVA at OpenDOAR, which is neither secondary nor independent.
4. A conference paper about using data from DiVA – this is a solid source, it is both reliable and independent. The main topic of the paper is not DiVA itself, but the data repository is a central topic in the paper, and I would argue that it does show some notability.
5. An article from the Swedish Research Council; this is independent, but it is not really about DiVA as such. (Again, to show notability for a subject, there must be independent sources that are specifically about that subject.)
6. Another article by Stefan Andersson (published in a festschrift to Ulf Göransson, I think?); this is fine for explaining the historical background of DiVA, but it is not independent.

I hope this made it a little clearer what kind of sources are required. I understand the frustration – again, to me DiVA is very much a notable archive, almost self-evidently so, but it is fundamentally important that Wikipedia articles are not based on what I or you or any other editor knows from our personal experience, but on what we can actually show in reliable published sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Great thanks for the reply. It is hard to find other references due to the reasons I mentioned earlier but I will not give in yet. NaneNeu (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DiVA (open archive) has been accepted

DiVA (open archive), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)