Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 March 6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 5 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 7 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


March 6

edit

03:04:06, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Helhelfafa

edit


Helhelfafa (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article. No question here. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:48, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Hsvenkatesh

edit


Hsvenkatesh (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsvenkatesh: - you don't include any sources so there's no way this draft could demonstrate its notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:09, 6 March 2019 review of submission by 60.241.181.164

edit


I am asking for a second opinion on the acceptance of the page of Colin Guillarmou, a French mathematician. The draft was rejected because it contained too many citations to subject's own works. However, this is common in a mathematician's page. Compare this entry, for instance, to the one of the following mathematicians: Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, Serge Cantat, etc. The fact that we refer to a mathematician's accomplishments by quoting its publications is normal. What gives credit to them is the fact that the publications appeared in prestigious journals. For a mathematician, the very top journals are: Acta Mathematica, Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Duke Mathematical Journal. The caliber of these journals correspond to the one of, say, Nature (journal) for a natural scientist. If you check the Wikipedia page of the other mathematicians that I mentioned, you will see that they all cite the person's best papers.

60.241.181.164 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSPRIMARY, the bulk of any article should come from reliable secondary sources. Guillarmou's works are primary sources with regard to any information about Guillarmou. The mathematician examples you give are not great articles, so they are poor patterns to follow. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best, such as Georg Cantor, Johannes Kepler, Emmy Noether, or Marian Rejewski. They contain a sprinkling of citations to their own work, but mostly they cite what other people have written about them.
As far as notability is concerned, the caliber of journals in which an academic has published may be used as a contributing factor in satisfying criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but it isn't normally sufficient. The draft could do a better job of conveying which criteria you think he satisfies, and how. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the pattern of a mathematician's Wikipedia page should be similar to those of Cantor, Kepler, or Noether, you may as well go ahead and remove the Wikipedia pages of 99% of contemporary scientists, as well as those of 99% percent of the statesmen (say, those whose patterns fall below the ones of Julius Caesar and Napoleon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.56.218 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:14, 6 March 2019 review of draft by Venusthelovegoddess

edit


Venusthelovegoddess (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I try to edit the information about Zafar Sareshwala, it gets changed. my edited details are removed and the page goes back to its previous form. please help me to improve the details about Zafar Sareshwala.

@Venusthelovegoddess: - so this draft was correctly declined as there is an actual article on it already - you've already edited it, so I assume you're now aware of that.
This isn't really the place for you having content difficulties on an article, but to save you bouncing around, I'll give a few points.
The editor who reverted your edits did not do so unreasonably. There were two main faults with the changes.
1) They were written in a promotional manner - generally a very positive tone "here is the good thing he did, here's another" etc
2) Articles on living persons have to use inline sources (the little blue numbers) for any controversial detail. By its nature, this generally includes anything in a controversies section and anything particularly positive about an individual. Inline citations has a few different ways to add inline citations.
If you have disagreements about your edits being reverted, then going to the talk page and asking the other individual why they're reverting it and saying why you think it should remain are critical to the whole process. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:21, 6 March 2019 review of draft by Dosseman

edit


After having added pictures to three important wooden mosques (some on UNESCO lists) in Turkey and having received "thanks" messages from another user for doing so I noticed that, though mentioned several times in articles, there was no information in the English Wikipedia on a mosque in Afyon(karahisar) that is important too. I thought I'd be useful in supplying some pictures and what information I had in my first article in the WIkipedia. I now am informed the information lacks a source.

Though I know several languages my Turkish is poor. But I checked the Turkish Wikipedia and found information about this mosque that roughly corresponds with what I wrote, though Google translate corrupted some parts. A first question is: might I use that as a reference? What worries me is that the three sources mentioned as reference in that article all link to the WaybackMachine. I find that very many articles nowadays about Turkey end up there, probably because the English Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey.

I found a picture I took in 2012 of a notice at the mosque itself, undoubtedly put there by (or accepted by) local authorities. In English it provides the information I used in my article. I might put a jpg of that picture in the gallery I put in. Might that be a reference, and be sufficient?

I also find the information confirmed in several travel guides that I own and use, how valid as sources would you consider those? I mentioned a Dutch translation of a Knaurs book, I find the same information in a Dumont "Reisefüher" in German, as well as on several tourist sites on the web. One I found (in Turkish) seems to be by the government (gv in the address: https://www.kulturportali.gov.tr/turkiye/afyonkarahisar/gezilecekyer/ulu-camii839501 ) Might that be a valid source?

Sorry for asking many questions, I try and write a good article, but Turksih sources that are dependable are hard to find. Dosseman (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dosseman (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dosseman. No language version of Wikipeida may be cited as a source, because all are user-generated, and thus not reliable.
If a source is reliable, then the same source archived in the WaybackMachine is also reliable. The fact that it's archived shouldn't worry you. Ideally all sources would be archived there.
A sign may be used as a reference. There is even a {{cite sign}} template for the purpose. It won't be sufficient to demonstrate notability for two reasons. First, a single source is alsmost never sufficient. Second, if it was erected by the organization responsible for managing the mosque, they have a vested interest in promoting it, so it isn't independent.
Travel guide books (whether in Dutch, German, or by the government) are an acceptable source for much of the information about a tourist attraction, but they aren't as desirable as a scholarly source, and I wouldn't use them for history because they aren't written by historians. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A published travel guide is as good as any RS for the history. They have editors and verificatio processes and don't just make stuff up. A government source for the history is also fine unless there is a reason to believe it is inaccurate but it seems unlikely the government of a muslum country will fabricate hisory of an old mosque. Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a speedy answer. Could you confirm you read this, my answer, as I do not understand the Talk-system quite yet?

When writing "Travel guide books" I meant "published travel guide" books. I have contributed to several over the years and know how thorough their proof-reading and checking of sources generally is. As for history of muslim buildings, I'd not be too trusting. For certain periods the source may be just one traveller who visited a town and wrote a book about his travels, or such. Or a stone above the entrance. Because of earthquakes and resulting fires many archives were lost. And there also is the problem of differing calendars and resulting errors. Dosseman (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:47, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Kunwarbrarmusic

edit


Kunwarbrarmusic (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Username is also promotional so will tag that. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:25, 6 March 2019 review of submission by EdgarJackson

edit


Any suggestions for resubmitting this? If I can gather more notable sources is that sufficient?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide.

-Edgar

EdgarJackson (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there is always room for more good sources, I've accepted the page. Obviously notable to me - non notable organizations do not get Past Presidents and royalty from various countries to speak at their conferences. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:02, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Mamtapawar512

edit


Mamtapawar512 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamtapawar512: - hi there. The previous editors were correct, as films are rarely notable before they are released. The sources given are not special enough (most are completely unsuitable - twitter, quora etc aren't reliable) to change that. Just hold the draft until release, add any reviews about it, and resubmit then. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_March_6&oldid=887343721"