Help desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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.

October 25

Request on 00:08:40, 25 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Bhumi2tandon

Bhumi2tandon (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ram Setu Controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bhumi2tandon (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir My article was vindictively and maliciously declined by a reviewer.

Please go through my coversation below with the previous reviewer and you will understand why I was in no position to fix the problem.

Copy of my conversation:-

"Please see a copy of my conversation with him below.

"The POV forks have already been fixed please check. Actually this is my first wiki page submission so I guess every place has its own style and language in which content is required to be written. Be it newspaper or websites :))

You cannot "fix" it. The whole thing is a POV fork. The answer was "no", and will remain "no" no matter how many times you repeat the question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that but a gentler tone would be appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Seraphimblade At 14:20 I objected to a high toned message from you and requested you to use a gentler tone and within 20 minutes of my message you went ahead and declined my draft page submission and arbitrarily closed a discussion that was posted on the page with respect to the merger of the page which was started today morning only and in which only you had given your opinion so far. The page was supposed to remain open for atleast seven days as per guidelines. I find this act on your behalf highly vindictive and prejudiced. Let me remind you that while Wikipedia grants some discretionary powers such vindictive acts are not covered by that.

Had you deleted my page the first time you went through it and thought it to be a POV fork I would not have objected but the action was done within 20 minutes of my submitting a message respectfully objecting to you high toned message this is clearly a vindictive act and highly objectionable behaviour for a place like wikipedia. Let me remind you no one not even you OWN the Wikipedia and small editors like us are the reason the Wikipedia exists. I would really appreciate if you stay away from the draft page now."

How can I fix the reason for decline when the page was declined vindictively and arbitrarily after removing a discussion posted in the group with respect to its merger that had been opened in morning only and in which only the reviewer had given his opinion so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhumi2tandon: Wikipedians use a lot of jargon and it is possible ~~you've not been made aware~~ did not read what we mean by 'POV fork'. If you take a look at WP:POVFORK you'll understand that Seraphimblade meant that there are two existing articles about the bridge which talk about the origin theories and the canal project, which you could expand. A 'point of view fork' means that rather than expanding those, you perhaps don't like those articles and would rather have a new one which is written in a way that promotes your particular view. So when you say 'the POV forks have already been fixed please check', anyone who checks will see that the issue has not been fixed.

There are two processes here, one to do with achieving consensus about merging some of the content you've written into those other articles, and the other about whether right now the draft you've written should be converted into an article. These are related issues, but the decision of not just Seraphimblade but other very experienced editors is that the draft should not currently be made into an article, hence the decline. If in a few days, the consensus is that there is no merit in merging the articles then the question of a stand-alone article about the controversies can be reviewed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhumi2tandon: Above, you claim that At 14:20 I objected to a high toned message from [Seraphimblade] [...] and within 20 minutes of my message [Seraphimblade] went ahead and declined my draft page submission. You don't remember the sequence of events correctly, however. Seraphimblade declined the draft at 12:40 UTC, and after that you posted to their user talk page, and you had a short discussion including the "objection" post you refer to above, at 14:20 UTC. The decline was not caused by your discussion – the discussion was not started until after the decline. Presumably you were misled by the fact that the time stamps in discussions are unified to show UTC time, unlike the time stamps you can see in the article history (which will show whatever time you have set in your preferences). --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well actually I found the manner in which the matter was dealt a bit high handed. Though ok may be there's been some error in understanding the time tags but really please could you guys be a bit more lenient with first time submissions.

Rather than being so strict around this whole Adams bridge page matter (having gone through the talk page) simply put up a notice on the page informing people that as per wiki rules page has to be named as per popular English names that's all.

Anyways there is no need for any further discussion in the matter as am not submitting this page anymore.

13:53:58, 25 October 2020 review of draft by Aminuddinshroff

Aminuddinshroff (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Moin-ud-din (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Editors, I have created an article to be published on Wikipedia for Moin-ud-din, the screenwriter and story writer for Indian Film Cinema. Due to the lack of the references, the article was rejected and I was redirected to this link to seek any assistance. I have cleaned the article by rephrasing the wording to avoid the conflict of interest and also added a couple of references. Hope this is good to go. Please advise or make any changes as necessary. If you find it fit to be published, please do so. Thank you in advance!

Aminuddinshroff (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A conflict of interest is more about you, the editor, and less what you write. (2) We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need to have a strong secondary source (newspaper, news magazine, industry journal) for every claim the article makes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 14:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:28, 25 October 2020 review of draft by Caerulescens

Caerulescens (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Elsa Hansen Oldham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I just submitted an article for review yesterday, and it was declined today. The reason was that my article didn't show significant coverage of the subject in "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm asking for help identifying which of the four sources are acceptable and which are not.

I cited four sources in my draft article. The first is an interview with the subject published on an online arts media website. The second is a profile of the subject in The New York Times. The third is a press release for the subject's first solo exhibition, published by the gallery where the exhibition was held. The fourth is an interview with the subject's husband, published in GQ magazine.

Could you help me by identifying which of the four sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage of the article's subject?

Edit after reviewing Wikipedia:Notability - I see that press releases are not considered "independent of the subject." This is the only published source for the paragraph about the subject's first solo exhibition. I could remove that paragraph from the article draft, thus removing the need for citing the press release. Would the removal of that source then make the article acceptable for submission?

Thanks! Caerulescens (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caerulescens (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not considered independent either. I cant realy determine how independent is the third one, but probbably also at least weak, since the most of the text is written by the subject. I havent checked the last one yet. The removal of the problematic sources would not help your cause, as there would still be no evidence of WP:NPERSON anywhere in the draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]