Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 January 27

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 26 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 28 >
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.


January 27

edit

05:21:55, 27 January 2016 review of submission by 2605:E000:6221:5400:8514:2838:E0FB:7617

edit


Hello. I am not requesting a re-review. I am requesting assistance with a reliable source example that would be approved. Can you tell me exactly what I need to find and submit to avoid another decline when I submit the page for review again? I'm trying to come up with a source that the Wikipedia editors will approve but so far I have not been able to. I've read the reliable sources examples your site has listed, but am still being denied or declined when I submit what I feel are reliable sources. Examples: IMDB page that lists work, history, bio, etc. Also I've submitted press release interviews and biographies about the person. Those did not get approved either. Please let me know what I should submit next time so I can avoid another rejection. Thank you.

Hi, thanks for stopping by the Help Desk. The first thing to do is to check out our guide to identifying reliable sources. That page notes that sources should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On the other hand, questionable sources, which should be avoided, are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. You can read the entire page to get a better feel for reliable sources, but at the end of the day they must be from a reputable source that's known for reporting solid facts. One factor to consider is whether the source you're citing has an editorial board or editorial policy. That's a good thing, as it means someone is fact-checking the content. On the other end of the spectrum, sites like web forums are not reliable sources, because anyone can contribute to them, and we can't just take the word of an arbitrary Internet user—no matter how well-intentioned they may be—when sourcing an encyclopedia article.
So this leads to IMDb: is it a reliable source? Not particularly. Anyone can edit IMDb to have it say what they want about the films someone has been in or the biographical content found there. User-generated content just doesn't meet the reliability threshold. What about press releases? The problem with those is that they are clearly not independent of the subject. So why should sources be independent of the subject? Because that's what encyclopedias are about—collecting and collating the information that reliable third-party sources have said about a subject. We're not terribly interested in what a subject has to say about themselves (although there is a place for that, in limited circumstances), but rather in what reliable sources have already said. That's the problem with press releases—they typically come from the subject itself and thus lack that much-needed independence.
For an actor, you may want to look for newspaper articles or discussions of the actor on reputable film news sites or film review pages. For example, if the New York Times film critic does a piece about a film an actor has been in, and devotes a few paragraphs to the actor's performance, that would be a solid foundation on which to build a Wikipedia article. There's no magic number of sources required, but an article should aim for at least three to five solid references—meaning from a reliable source, independent of the subject, and offering significant coverage. Also keep in mind the actor inclusion criteria—if the actor meets at least one of those criteria, then they are probably suitable for inclusion (subject, of course, to finding the sources to back up the claims made).
I hope this is helpful; you know where to find us if you have further questions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 05:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:13:24, 27 January 2016 review of submission by 2605:E000:6221:5400:E16F:A132:FE17:1D78

edit

If I were to find a page from a reliable source such as LA Daily News and/or CBS News with writers from each of those companies writing about the actor in detail, would that satisfy Wikipedia for Jordan Lawson page being included in Wikipedia? Please advise. Thanks!

2605:E000:6221:5400:E16F:A132:FE17:1D78 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome back! The short answer is that it depends on the article. The LA Daily News and CBS News have editorial staff and are likely reliable sources, but it depends on the particular article you're citing, of course. If the article is an opinion piece or an editorial piece, it is then rarely reliable for statements of fact, per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. A more "journalistic" story would be preferable. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to find a "reliable source" example: a THIRD PARTY site that has picked up an article about the actor that explains his/her career in detail with biography, story or stories written about the actor and websites/links on the same site page confirming the content and person they are talking about? If I can find a source such as this, and it's a THIRD PARTY site, not affiliated with the person being talked about, will this satisfy Wikipedia and put the Jordan Lawson page up on the site? Please let me know. Thanks.

2605:E000:6221:5400:E16F:A132:FE17:1D78 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source that is independent of the subject and that offers significant coverage is exactly the kind of source we're looking for. Keep in mind, however, that just one such source probably won't be enough to show the actor's notability—ideally, three to five such sources is the bar to aim for. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:52, 27 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CANVAS

edit


Hello. About the page for the book Blueprint for Revolution (found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blueprint_for_Revolution), first of all it meets criteria 1 and 4 on the notability guidelines, as many independent sources have been included, and there have been universities which have discussed the book for study. In that regard, I really don't understand why the page has been rejected (I was told it was on the basis of those, but I can't see what merits that). Additionally, As far as the title goes, the longer title is the full title, but the shorter one is more common. I was told my use of this was a reason for rejection, so if you would like me to amend this, I will. Is there any other reason why this page has been deleted, or would that be it?

CANVAS (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CANVAS: Hi, and thanks for stopping by the Help Desk. I've done some cleanup on the draft and have accepted it into the main article space. You can find it at Blueprint for Revolution. Congratulations on the article!
On another note, it appears you may have a conflict of interest as there is also an organization named CANVAS referred to in the article. If this is the case, then please disclose it according to Wikipedia's policy. Just follow the instructions by clicking the link in that last sentence. I have also left you some instructions on your talk page that explain how to change your username, as Wikipedia's username policy prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product.
If there is a conflict of interest, it is very important that you read and understand the conflict of interest rules. For example, editing the Blueprint for Revolution page now that it has been accepted would be strongly discouraged; rather, please suggest changes using the {{Request edit}} template on the Blueprint for Revolution talk page. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 13:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:34, 27 January 2016 review of submission by GreyFoxBluegrass

edit 
I have been unable to upload photographs that were successfully downloaded and have the megadata attached, such as these photos: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Overview_at_2015_Grey_Fox_Bluegrass_Festival.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Del_McCoury_Band_at_2015_Grey_Fox_Bluegrass_Festival.jpg

When I try to upload these photos, I get this notice: "There is another file already on the site with the same content."

Please help me free these photos to the wiki page for GreyFoxBluegrass. Thank you.


GreyFoxBluegrass (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:39, 27 January 2016 review of submission by Nicole Kim The Blogger

edit


Nicole Kim The Blogger (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I was not finishing a wanted to make some corrections and add tomypagebut couldnot he back to my sandbox. Can I edit my onscreen though it is up for review?[reply]

You can edit a sandbox at any time. However, I have declined the submission and left you some advice there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:03, 27 January 2016 review of submission by BeeCeePhoto

edit


Notability and references

edit

A firehouse renamed is notable. See: The City of Baltimore issued a proclamation on June 5, 2003, that at 11:00 a.m., Mayor Martin O'Malley, Chief William J. Goodwin, Jr. and the Board of Fire Commissioners will rename the quarters of Engine #33, Truck #5, located at 801 E. 25th Street, in honor of former Chief of Fire Department Herman Williams, Jr.

The Chief, one of the Vulcan Blazers founders, was cited by the Baltimoresun. a daily newspaper, here: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-01-04/news/0101040188_1_fire-department-city-fire-fire-deaths

and cited on the gov website here: https://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Government/AgenciesDepartments/Fire/NewsPressReleases/tabid/231/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4535/Chief-Clack-Promotes-Fire-Departments-First-African-American-Female-Battalion-Chief.aspx News CBS affiliate cbslocal: http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/baltimore-city-fire-department-promotes-first-african-american-female-battalion-chief/ also cited here: http://rnia1.org/battalion-chief-charline-b-stokes/

and by the IAFF fire union here: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-14/news/0711140332_1_goodwin-dixon-resignation Henry Burris, the head of the Vulcan Blazers, requested federal intervention in 2011 and called the dept 'racist', here: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-11-15/news/bs-md-ci-chief-clack-20111115_1_chief-clack-fire-department-vulcan-blazers

The incident is covered here: http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?p=217 and here; http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-wilson0210-story.html f.f. injuries at that fire cited here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-wilsonside0210-story.html f.f. Wilsons promotion cited here: http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.obits/83328/mb.ashx The completed investigation is here: http://api.ning.com/files/m3L7vihSP*vBdQeJzt5KLHWG8knVGxBHk2rDxuBx*dL2PYo0WEOhmzvJfLH*bEKdBKdBh3ntTk1mP-ms9v-jChIj3FqoRqsQ/BaltimoreTrainingLODDFinalReport82307.pdf

In February 2007 fire cadet Rachael Wilson, a wife and mother of two children, died of asphyxiation during a botched training exercise in a burning West Baltimore row house. Wilson was the only Black female cadet in that class. The tragedy allegedly contributed heavily to the decision to dismiss then Chief William Goodwin in 2007. He was replaced by Clack in 2008. Carter’s complaint argues he was passed over for the position of fire chief in favor of Clack who is White. The suit also alleges he was the subject of several internal investigations based solely on anonymous complaints; a practice many Black current and former members maintain is routinely implemented to unjustly dismiss Black firefighters. Carter served as president of the Vulcan Blazers — the organization that represents the city’s Black firefighters — from 2004 to 2006. The group’s current president says racial discrimination and animosity against Blacks in the department is systemic. “As far back as 1987, with the help of the NAACP…we met with the mayor to discuss the issues of institutional racism in the Baltimore City Fire Department…prior to that we had a successful lawsuit proving that the fire department had discriminated,” said Henry Burris, president of the Vulcan Blazers. The decision in favor of Black firefighters connected to the class action lawsuit Burris alludes to was rendered in 1973, the same year the Vulcan Blazers was formed in order to monitor hiring practices and disciplinary actions of the department in reference to Black firefighters. Burris, who originally lead the Vulcan Blazers from 1990 to 1992, began his latest tenure with the organization in 2006. He has also sought action by the United States Department of Justice against the fire department and maintains he cannot comment directly about Carter’s lawsuit. However, he believes Clack, who was highly touted as being “progressive” in the area of diversity when he was hired from his former position in Minneapolis, has been compromised by the city’s two powerful, predominately White fire unions. - See more at: http://www.afro.com/baltimore-fire-department-sued-for-racial-discrimination/#sthash.gLeCsyd7.dpuf

At this point it's fairly redundant, The VB have been at the heart of Baltimores diversity efforts from their founding in 1970 to the present day. All of the news stories about the group were negative calls the news media trumpeted as the only thing they seemed capable of, namely calling out the Institutionally racist policies of the BFCD. So positive stories of the Vulcan Blazers did not make the news. But cites are found aplenty of individual VB's whom are feted for their contributions, or their loss. Other than the 3 editors whom have declined the article as notable, is there any one whom sees this article as notable, possessing context, is timelined and can be streamlined by further editing? Robco311 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Robco311 - I've taken the time to check all of the "sources" you've linked here. Only a handful of them even contain the phrase "Vulcan Blazers" and do so only to mention that some person being quoted or reported about is a member. None of these "sources" actually say anything significant about the Vulcan Blazers itself.
To qualify for inclusion you need to find at least a few independent reliable sources that specifically and in depth and detail discuss the organisation itself. Passing mentions in articles about or that merely quote a member of the organization are completely useless to prove notability.
I remember giving you similar advice quite some time ago - I'm afraid Wikipedia's notability rule is still the same now as then. The best you can do now is to actually write a book, or at least a really substantial magazine article, about the Vulcan Blazers and get a reputable established mainstream publisher to print it. Perhaps the history department of a local college or university might be interested in assisting you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger (Dodger67) - Other than the 3 editors whom have declined the article as notable and there are book references, see http://www.amazon.com/dp/1588250075/ref=rdr_ext_tmb What I'm getting from you is that they don't matter, but I see a group that fought for integration and against racism, mentored young black men off the streets and into public service, stood upright in their community and were members of the black middle class that you would deny a place in history, because nobody wrote an article about a civil service fraternal organization. Like the Vulcans, the Stentorians and others, they made a difference. I don't accept your rejection, and am asking other editors to stand up and be counted. Robco311 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a reference to the congressional record citing their groundbreaking lawsuit, along with articles from the Baltimore Sun, a reputable newspaper of record, the renaming of a city firehouse, all show that the evidence of preponderance has shifted and a new reason for denying the article needs articulation... Robco311 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:23, 27 January 2016 review of submission by AprilCharlie14

edit

Hi! I am working on draft for a bio on an American academic. It was denied but after reading the bios of other academics I see that it will work better as a stub. Could you please review it and let me know what you think? The last feedback I was received was to increase the formality and neutrality of tone, which I hope you'll see in the bio. I appreciate the feedback, thanks! AprilCharlie14 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been accepted - James L. Moore III - congratulations! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016_January_27&oldid=703129162"