Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 November 14

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< November 13 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 15 >
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.


November 14

edit

09:00:44, 14 November 2017 review of submission by ChaitaneyaDalvi

edit


ChaitaneyaDalvi (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just informing that I manually reverted your accidental move of the Draft into mainspace. Please try to refrain from doing so .The reviewers will move it into mainspace when your Draft will be okay-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:33, 14 November 2017 review of submission by Unleasher82

edit


hi , i created an article about one of our major organization in the state of Kuwait. all the information are valid from genuine websites , i was wondering why the article was declined ?

Unleasher82 (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unleasher82. The accuracy and reliability of the draft's sources is not in question. However, to justify an encyclopedia article about a company, there must be significant coverage of it in independent, reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources cited by the draft (the company, it's parent company, and a partner company) are independent. A quick search for independent sources found some brief mentions, but nothing of substantial depth. In the absence of better sources, I suggest you add a paragraph to Kuwait Petroleum Corporation describing the history and function of Kuwait Gulf Oil Company within the context of that organization. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:25:58, 14 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RPritzlaff

edit


The portions of our wikipedia page that are being called 'copywritten' is all language that came from us that was then written on a site about us. They are our words used with our permission on the other site, but we did not take them from that site. How can we resolve this? RPritzlaff (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RPritzlaff (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RPritzlaff: Your question raises a number of concerns. You write "our words" and "we did not". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. You write "our wikipedia page", but no editor owns an enyclopedia article. If you meant that Draft:The feath3r theory is about your organization, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Writing about yourself or your organization on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. It's almost always a huge waste of time for you and for Wikipedia volunteers. If a person or organization is foolish enough to think that an article about them would be a good thing (is unfamiliar with the law of unintended consequences), then the preferred way to get an article is to ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
With regard to using copyrighted text, you may be able to license the text to solve the legal problem. There are steps that must be taken to verify that license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Even if you are able to establish a compatible license, it likely will be impossible to use the text here. Material on https://www.dance-enthusiast.com/dance-listings/classes/view/Incubator-Series-Raja-Feather-Kelly-2017-04-25_27 has been written to publicize Raja Feather Kelly / The feath3r theory, a purpose which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Writing an encyclopedia article is an entirely different undertaking. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:00:32, 14 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung

edit


Dear Sir or Madam,

my article about the PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung was declined, due to lacking reliable sources.

What if I don`t have any reliable additional sources?

I have one official source from the Bavarian Government: "Bavarian official directory of foundations"

The others are articles from newspapers. For the article in the German Wiki the sources were sufficient.

I kindly ask for request.

Thanks in advance and with best regards

Wolfgang Unger


PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The good news is that if an article satisfies one set of rules, it can often be improved to satisfy another set of rules with a small amount of work. I've changed the draft so that it uses cite templates, which can make the nature of its sources clearer.
A number of other improvements could be made. The best person from whom to seek direction is the draft's most recent reviewer:
@Ammarpad: You wrote "most of the references (if not all) are that if the foundation" and asked for reliable "news sources, websites, newspapers not affiliated with the foundation." One of the five sources is the foundation, which clearly is not independent. One source is a state government office, and the other three are newspapers. These four are ostensibly independent. Would you elaborate on what makes you feel they are not independent? Or what other aspects of the draft prevent it from being accepted? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, @Worldbruce: I think my comment is self explanatory. I didn't accept it because in my (limited) judgment it is still not ready for mainspace notwithstanding it's presence in dewiki. However, if you feel I made a mistake (or the reviewers who rejected it previously) just accept and publish it or ask for someone to do so at the Reviewers' talk page.  — Ammarpad (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:29, 14 November 2017 review of submission by 190.19.207.150

edit

17:26:29, 14 November 2017 review of submission by 190.19.207.150

Dear All. This is the first time I try to submitt a wikipedia page about Valeria Vegh Weis but it has been rejected. Unfortunately the last rejection was not very clear. It states: ¨This submission needs significant improvements and copy-editing to look like a wikipedia article.¨ I worked on the proposal and I sent another version on September 22. I have not receive any response yet. I would be delighted if you could help me out with more precise information about the mistakes that the proposal has and I would also appreciate if someone could indicate me how long would it take to receive feedback in relation to my last submission.190.19.207.150 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2017

There is a large backlog. The version submitted by Enzo Guido Leone on 23 October 2017 will probably be reviewed by the first week in December. You may continue to improve it while you wait. A large portion at the end of the draft appears to duplicate content above it. If so, it should be removed. If you are trying to show that she meets a criterion of WP:PROF, be more explicit in the first sentence or two about which one she meets. Wikipedia tends to concentrate on an academic's books, and not list their journal articles, so I recommend removing those. If there are reviews in scholarly journals of her books, cite them. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:28, 14 November 2017 review of submission by Chandler Slavin

edit

I don't understand why my article was denied publication. The reason provided was that the references do not show the subject's notability, though in each case I reference reliable and independent sources that support my statements. Chandler Slavin (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chandler Slavin. The draft's sources are a trade association blog and what appear to be three trade journals. Reviewers may be discounting these as evidence of notability because of their limited audience and because the often too-cozy relationship between them and the industries and companies they cover raises concerns about their independence and objectivity. Chandler Slavin, for example, is: a member of the family that owns the company, Sustainability Coordinator for the company, and a contributing writer for Packaging Digest - a source that is cited three times.
Reviewers may also be concerned by the narrow and promotional focus of the draft, which omits much basic information about the company - public/private, size, locations, history, controversies, etc. Max Liboiron's 2013 NYU PhD thesis, Redefining Polution: Plastics in the Wild, for example, cite's the same Chalder Slavin's views on ocean plastic pollution as an example of controversial minority views about plastic pollution.
Without a broader range of sources (ideally more mainstream ones such as The Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, or Sierra), it's unlikely that the draft will be published. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:06, 14 November 2017 review of submission by Nayirim

edit


Hello,

I am revisiting this entry as I'd like to get something posted about science gateways soon. As I have been considering adding it to the web portal page, I'm a bit concerned as to how to appropriately integrate it. Science gateways, which are an international topic of interest have enough information about them that would cause an imbalance if I tried to integrate with the web portal section since there are a number of lists and subsections within the "science gateway" entry draft. Moreover, I considered adding it to the Virtual Research Environments page but I realized that VREs are a subset of science gateways, not the other way around. Finally, I considered the entry of "gateway (webpage)" but the "science gateway" content does not fit with this either.

Can you please advise if it would be appropriate to add all the content I've created in the "science gateway" draft in the web portal entry and, if so, how I would then create (per your suggestion) a redirect. If this is not appropriate, then I am hoping my request to make this a new entry can be reconsidered. The person who originally reviewed this entry has been blocked.

Thanks very much, Nayiri

@Nayirim: Hello again, Nayiri. We discussed this question here on July 21 and it's good to see that you're now exploring the suggestions made to you back then (about adding material to Web portal article instead of having a separate article). As for how much of the content could be moved into that article, that's not something that we decide here at the Help Desk. Instead, I encourage you to open a discussion at Talk:Web portal. When you do so, provide a link to your draft and ask the folks there whether they see any problems with you adding all of the material. And then see what response you get. Frankly, that Talk page doesn't seem very active and, if you get no response within a week or so, feel free to add the appropriate material and see if anyone objects at that point.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just re-read your question and noticed that I didn't address the matter of a re-direct. I'll be happy to do that for you once you've sorted out whether you'll be adding the material to Web portal. Feel free to drop a note on my Talk page when that's been done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try that route. Before I do so, though, can you please let me know if there's any way my request to make this a new entry will be reconsidered? I think it would be challenging and not fit very well with the suggestions made to incorporate in the web portal page. As you can see, I have created a significant amount of content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayirim (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayirim: Yes, you can request a reconsideration simply by re-submitting the draft for review. It will take a few weeks before someone gets around to looking at it, but you'll get the opinion of a third editor and perhaps that person will view the draft more favorably. I do think it fair, however, to point out that a lot of your content is unsourced and will probably generate a decline even from a reviewer who might otherwise have accepted the notability of the topic. There's also quite a few in-article external links (i.e., links inside the main text that take the reader outside of Wikipedia). These are almost never acceptable. So, if you do choose to re-submit, you might want to address those matters first. Whatever your choice, I wish you good luck. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:16:18, 14 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ilovepitts

edit



Ilovepitts (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Help...

I am at a loss to know how someone who is in the Hall of Fame is not noteworthy.. the highest honor in the business... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sara_Jay

I think the references are all adult recognized. It would qualify under WP:PORNBIO. Sara Jay was rejected before by an admin who has since been banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktr101

Ilovepitts (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovepitts: Hello, Ilovepitts. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Although this topic has been deleted (at least) four times, I see that the subject has now been inducted into her industry's Hall of Fame and satisfies WP:PORNBIO on that basis. But the reviewers who left comments on your submission do raise valid points about the general quality of the sourcing. On a very basic level, you should be aware that IMDB is not accepted by us as reliable, so any information being sourced to it will need to be either removed or backed up by a different source. Similarly for YouTube sources, with the added complication that YouTube is notorious for allowing uploads from people who don't own the copyright in the uploaded material. There's more that can be said about the sourcing, as well as the draft's structure, but it will take more discussion than would be appropriate here at the Help Desk. If you don't mind waiting a day, I'll be happy to add detailed comments on the Talk page of your submission tomorrow, and will notify you when I do so. If you have any questions that require an immediate response, feel free to ask them here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you! This is my first subject and the learning curve has been nothing but difficult. I will follow your direction and attempt to do my best to clean up and source as needed.Ilovepitts (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_14&oldid=811192838"