Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 September 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 18 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 20 >
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 19[edit]

00:55:20, 19 September 2021 review of draft by Blackdeath39-9979533[edit]


Good day, I have created and published a Wikipedia page regarding the Mellin-Ross function because it was a function with very little research on, therefore not enough sources out there discussing it and its properties. Hence I took three days of continuous work deriving various results to share with other enthusiasts and researchers. The reason of declining was because there are not enough sources referenced which is the sole purpose of why I created the page in the first place. I do understand that a list of properties and equalities with no valid reference is not the most trustable thing to publish, therefore I would like to enquire if including how the results were derived in the page will be enough for the issue to be resolved.

Blackdeath39-9979533 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't help, if I'm frank. You'd need to demonstrate that this function has seen some academic or other interest, at the very least, as opposed to just demonstrating its existence by making calculations. Compare this to the section on Keeler's/the Futurama theorem on the "The Prisoner of Benda" article at the very least; that section has a fair number of sources demonstrating that there has been some academic interest in it beyond its novelty. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:27, 19 September 2021 review of draft by Medicineowl[edit]


Please just remove whatever is not encyclopedic to get the entry published for me; it's actually an emergency.

Medicineowl (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medicineowl, The decline is correct. If you are experiencing an emergency situation contact the appropriate local authorities, we can't help you with that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ive contacted emergency personnel; the Information War extends into this space as well. Would an experienced editor mind helping me publish a more basic and encyclopedic entry about this?

Please read this information. Wikipedia should not have an "alternative" version of Electronic harassment that goes against what mainstream, reliable sources say and presents the theory as reality. Note also that several of the sources in the draft don't support the text in the draft. I am actually a bit surprised that the draft was declined rather than rejected. Wikipedia simply isn't a medium for disseminating that kind of claim. --bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:00, 19 September 2021 review of submission by Kobia2020[edit]

am requesting assistant because i have submited my page two time and rejected twice. My company website is oxdes.com its a classified website with presence in over 150 countries Kobia2020 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode, and note I am deliberately skipping over any cites to the subject itself.
This would be a lot more helpful if your sourcing was actually available. The fact that so many of your sources are either dead or have technical issues is not a good one for the draft, full stop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:21, 19 September 2021 review of submission by Toomuchbroadway[edit]

I don't understand why my draft keeps getting rejected. It says the references of the articles are invalid but they are from pretty credible sources and official sites. Could please help in pointing out which specific references are not valid and why? or if all tell me how I can fix this. Thank you Toomuchbroadway (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have one unambiguously usable source, one borderline one, one screwed by tech issues, and the rest are absolutely worthless. Your problem is you focus too much on the outlet; we care just as much about a source's actual content as well. See WP:SIGCOV. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:23, 19 September 2021 review of submission by Deepikaaswani[edit]


Deepikaaswani (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepikaaswani You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]