Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 14

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 13 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 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.


July 14

edit

00:31:41, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Kendoma

edit


Kendoma (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01:15:29, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Debraannclark

edit


I'm assuming that I have met all the qualifications for getting this article approved. It has been MORE than 2 months now. I would appreciate an expedited approval/publishing of this article or a reason why it's taking so long. I understand you're backlogged, but this has been going on forever. Thank you!

--Debraannclark (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debraannclark (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined as hopelessly non-notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:19:02, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Carlis Rowe

edit


Carlis Rowe (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)I am requesting a re-view to understand why the rejection in order to fix it.[reply]

Hi Carlis Rowe. You (if you are the Carlis Rowe you wrote about) are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that you should stop, that no amount of editing can fix the problem. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for review

edit

01:27:13, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Rumbidzainokutenda

edit

Requesting for review , i have corrected errors which were highlighted . Please let me know if there are other parts i should add or correct . Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:35, 14 July 2019 review of submission by 183.83.78.82

edit


183.83.78.82 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:11, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Ayushssengar

edit


Ayushssengar (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


== 07:51:34, 14 July Theroadislong (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:51, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Gyllila

edit


Dear Madam/Sir,

Could you tell me how to find out who decided to redirect the search for “convertible money“ to “gold standard”? As much as I know, the two terms are related, but not the same, thus I decided to create a page for “convertible money”.

My submission has been declined twice, because the reviewing users thought that “convertible money” is not widely used and not of public interest. However, if it were so, then nobody would have created a redirection page for “convertible money“ in first place. I guess that’s because they are different users and thus differently well informed, therefore I’d like to directly contact the user or users who have created the redirection. Maybe they can create a page on their own or give me more references so that I can better create the page.

Can you tell me how to find them? Many thanks! Gyllila (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyllila: - hi there. Skysmith created the redirect...and impressive 11 years ago. Most editors of that era aren't around, but Skysmith does occasionally edit, but only rarely. Have you tried setting out the specific differences talking to the reviewers. The sources would need to set out a fairly substantive difference to make it a distinct article - but additional sections to the gold standard article might be an alternate possibility. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that - much better answer underneath! (please no duplicate questions) Nosebagbear (talk)

11:51:37, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Gyllila

edit


Thank you for the reply. However, can you please be more clear about the reason? Is it declined because it only contains definition or is it declined because of lack of public coverage? For the first, it’s no problem to add the theory and modeling part, but to the latter, I don’t know how public is public enough for you. “Convertible money” is automatically redirected to “gold standard“ on your site, why did you create this redirection if it’s not of public interest? Maybe another user did that? Can you please tell me how to contact her? Because “convertible money” is only related to “gold standard “ but not the same, it would be misleading to cover them in the same page. In my previous research I never found any source which equates convertible money with gold standard, but I’m also open for different statements which fulfill the criteria you have mentioned to me.

Best regards Gyllila (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyllila. If you click on Convertible Money you'll be redirected to article Gold standard, but in the upper left corner of the page, under the page title, will be the text (Redirected from Convertible Money). If you click that link, you'll go to the Convertible Money page without being redirected. You can investigate its history like any other page, by clicking the view history tab near the top, to right of centre. The page was created in November 2005‎ as a one sentence definition. This suggests, incidentally, that the expression may not have been first introduced in Guo (2018). The page was turned into a redirect in May 2006‎ by an editor who now edits infrequently. You may leave a message on their talk page, but it's unlikely that you'll receive a quick reply or that they will remember one edit made 13 years ago out of their 23,000 edits.
A redirect does not mean that "convertible money" is equivalent to "gold standard". It only means that Wikipedia doesn't have an article named "convertible money", but that some relevant information can be found in gold standard. Redirects are not deleted if it is plausible that someone might search for the term. People do search for it, but very rarely, only 50 times in the past six months, and there's no way to tell what they wanted information about, perhaps convertibility, perhaps gold standard, perhaps convertible money. One can't assume from the existence of the redirect that there's a public interest in having an encyclopedia article dedicated to the term.
You may continue with the draft, but it would need to cite more than the work of one economist to be accepted. It would also be good if the draft were more than a definition, although a definition might be accepted as a stub article as long as it is clear that the expression is not a neologism. According to Google Ngram Viewer, the expression first appeared in books in the 1870s, its peak usage was from about 1905 to 1910, it saw a modest resurgence from the mid-1930s to about 1960, and a blip of usage in the 1990s. Writing a new encyclopedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating things an editor new to Wikipedia can attempt. You would be more likely to succeed at it if you spent some time becoming familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, perhaps by editing existing articles in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, if that's your area of interest. You can always return to convertible money later. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:46, 14 July 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:FEDB:2500:DD5C:E516:52BD:1A35

edit


2605:E000:FEDB:2500:DD5C:E516:52BD:1A35 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Should it be posted under a different Catagory?[reply]

Your submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is totally inappropriate in tone, it has no sources and appears to be autobiographical. Wikipedia only reports on what reliable sources have said. Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_July_14&oldid=1049766035"