• ELP123 (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted the above page for review and it was declined for not having enough "reliable sources." I used sources like Billboard and The Hollywood Reporter which are extremely reliable and verifiable in the industry. Please let me know what needs to be added or changed for this to be approved. Thanks!

ELP123 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ELP. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I took a look at your submission and found that it has been declined by a second reviewer as being too promotional. And both of those concerns continue to apply. Most of your submission is simply a listing of clients, which leads to the "promotional" aspect. As for the rest, I found no sources that provided in-depth coverage of the subject. Instead, the sources either gave the subject passing mentions or included quotes from the company's founder. Without in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajurisic (talk · contribs)
  • Jovan Golić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Jovan Golić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Main argument for declination of my Wikipedia article on Jovan Golić: “The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.”

Questions: Does this mean that the quoted sources are not reliable or that the given reliable sources are not adequately cited? Which given sources are not reliable and why? What is wrong with the rationale given below? What should be improved?

Rationale: In essence, Jovan Golić is being proposed for inclusion in Wikipedia:
(1) for his world-recognized contributions to cryptography, most notably in the area of widely used stream ciphers, which are covered by several articles in Wikipedia and where he is known as a world leading expert, and
(2) for his prominent role as the Action Line Leader for Privacy, Security & Trust in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), where EIT is already covered by an article in Wikipedia.

Item (1) is formulated by three statements:
“He introduced many cryptanalytic methods for stream ciphers…”,
“He pioneered cryptanalytic attacks on many widely-used stream ciphers…”, and
“He is known for his work on…”.

The statements are supported by:
(i) wikilinks where his work has been referred to (A5/1, RC4, Bluetooth, MUGI, time-memory tradeoff),
(ii) selected publications of Jovan Golić in reputable international peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings,
(iii) two independent peer-reviewed publications referring to his work on RC4,
(iv) citation reports by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar, and
(v) DBLP publications list.

All these sources appear to be independent, objective, verifiable, and hence reliable. More precisely, the used formulations “many cryptanalytic methods” and “pioneering cryptanalytic attacks” are undoubtedly supported by selected peer-reviewed publications in premium-class journals and conference proceedings and citations of these publications. In particular, please note that his prominent publications on stream ciphers A5/1 and RC4 presented at EUROCRYPT 1997 contain first published cryptanalysis of these widely used stream ciphers.

Item (2) is supported by an announcement on the EIT Digital weblink and one external weblink, which are certainly verifiable and thus reliable.

Please help!

To establish that its subject is notable, an article must cite several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject. Wikilinks do not help, as Wikipedia does not regard itself as reliable, there would be a problem of circularity if it did. Draft:Jovan Golić has 26 references, or 28 if you include the external links. However, it only cites the first 24 of these, which are all to the subject's own writings, and so not independent. Thus the draft cites 0 independent sources. I would therefore expect any reviewer to reject it. I don't know whether Golić is notable, but you are going to need to show that he is by finding some acceptable sources, and citing them. Maproom (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajurisic (talk · contribs)
  • Jovan Golić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Jovan Golić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to change the current title "Jovan Golić" to "Jovan Dj. Golić", since there is already another article with the title "Jovan Golić", but it seems that this cannot be changed. Thank you in advance for your advice.

There's no need to bother about that. If the article is accepted, the reviewer will find a suitable title for the article when they move it. Maproom (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 104.163.152.80 (talk · contribs)
  • Cédric Herrou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Cédric Herrou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm interested in second opinions on whether notability is satisfied in this article. The reviewer says it's a WP:CRIME article, but it seems to me that it's a genuinely notable individual. I'd argue that the 2000 word "underground railroad" profile article in the New York Times (he's had two articles in the NY times) pushes this over into notable person terrain, rather than non-notable crime. The Times profile deals exclusively with the subject and his efforts at bringing migrants across the border. There are other profile articles and interviews listed in the references. The references are from the Guardian, the NY times, Le Figaro, Liberation, SF Chronicle etc. They are what you call 'good refs'!104.163.152.80 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:104.163.152.80. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Your submission seems to be a borderline case. Although the subject has certainly garnered international coverage, most of it relates to the pending trial. I think it was reasonable for the reviewer to raise the issue of WP:CRIME because I, too, see a question of whether the subject meets that guideline's notion of "historic significance" (which it defines as "indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"). Nonetheless, I'm inclined to say that the subject does satisfy our notability criteria. But before accepting the submission for publication, I'd like to hear comments from any other reviewer who happens to read this response over the next few hours. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TheoNic (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Why was my page request turned down!?* — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoNic (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Draft:Super-class Star Destroyer, the reason for the decline is explained at the top of the draft: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." In fact it cites no sources at all, and fails to mention that its subject is fictitious. Maproom (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kradelet (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Leukemia Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just submitted a article titled Leukemia Research Foundation. I asked yesterday on your FAQ if i could/should as I serve as the organization's Executive Director. I was told to go ahead as it appeared I understood your parameters on advertising, self-promotion, etc.

My question: Was I supposed to reveal some type of potential conflict of interest as I submitted this draft?

Just trying to be on the up and up. The LRf is most certainly notable and we hope to be published. THanks Kradelet (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article speedy deleted. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Daveorama (talk · contribs)
  • Nick Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Nick Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft for Nick Middleton was rejected for reasons that indicate notability and citation. I don't understand this because I included substantial citations and links to existing articles on Wikipedia associated with this person. The article is linked to The Funk Hunters of which he is one of the two members, and it is also linked to the Wikipedia article on Westwood Recordings of which he is the CEO and producer. I have also linked to many artists who Middleton works with who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. In addition I have submitted with legitimate citations. So, I am confused as to why the article was rejected and I am finding it difficult to understand what it is that needs correcting. Please be specific and I will correct it, but as it stands I can not comprehend whey it is being rejected for those reasons.

Thank you

Commented there. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wjcfreelancer (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

I have received notice that this new page has been rejected: "Substantial portions of this draft needs to be rewritten in prose instead of long lists with no context or indicate why the items in the list are important, what they represent in the legacy of the unit, or how they relate to an encyclopedic understanding."

I followed the format used for existing, similar articles. The "lists" are (1) a presentation of the regiment's companies showing where they were raised in prose, but indented so that each company is separated for the reader's convenience; (2) a lengthy presentation of the regiment's service,

Wjcfreelancer (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article accepted. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]