Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 5 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 7 >
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.


May 6[edit]

05:19:11, 6 May 2021 review of submission by 103.147.208.52[edit]


103.147.208.52 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The two English-language sources proffered are parroting him and a name-drop, respectively, and are not useful for notability. No comment on the non-English source, as automated translation generally returns word salad for South and East Asian languages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:46:06, 6 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Pantheonwest[edit]


It was assumed that I was somehow connected to the person I wrote about, and I'm not. I simply wanted to expand my portfolio by including 'wikipedia article creation', and thus found someone that didn't have a wikipedia that should. I would like my article to be reviewed under the correct context please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lucy_Gibson



Pantheonwest (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheonwest (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pantheonwest Who made the Photo of her you are using in your draft ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford It is public domain found on flickr, sir. Pantheonwest (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford Here is the link https://www.flickr.com/photos/185613801@N08/51164594795/in/dateposted-public/
@Pantheonwest: At File:Lucy Gibson Recent.jpg you state that the photo is entirely your own work. In other words that you are the copyright holder, you made it yourself, from scratch, without copying or incorporating anybody else's creative work. In short, that you are the photographer. In this discussion you point to the photo in the album of a photographer who goes by Jeff Sutton on Flickr. Taking the two statements together, you're saying you are him. All you've uploaded to Flickr is six photos of Gibson and her shop, taken on six different dates, over a period of over three years. Yet you also deny any connection to Gibson. It doesn't add up.
You write that Gibson should "have a wikipedia". Unlike social media sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn, where everyone may have and control a page about themselves, people don't "have a Wikipedia [article]". There are biographies on Wikipedia, but only of people who are significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded, as demonstrated by significant coverage of them in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And those people don't own or control what Wikipedia says about them. Gibson is plainly not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia), yet of all the things you could write about, you've chosen her as your subject. Volunteers will be reluctant to help you when it appears you're not being forthright. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce ::@Worldbruce: So instead of a simple explanation, a first time user misunderstanding of own work conflated between public domain work, you contrive the much more complex explanation that I've uploaded three years of photos and decided to write a completely un-editorialized, objective wikipedia article now. Check out Hanlon's Razor if you ever need to take a break from rubbish inferences and illogical conclusions. To address the last part, my wife follows her on IG and Googled her to find out more information, mentioned she didn't have a Wikipedia and I thought she would maybe a contender for my quest, upon Googling her myself, I thought she did merit an article. I believe a female-owned and operated chain of business, particularly originating in the Middle East is noteworthy. But keep stifling those that are trying to empower and showcase the work of women, you certainly won't be the first. For the record, help would look like - clarifying the differences between own work and public domain work and how I can update the piece to accurately reflect that. My request is still the same as it has been, to have my draft reviewed with the proper context. Pantheonwest (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@worldbruce I was able to figure out how to update the photo to accurately reflect the public domain license. Thanks for the "help". Free tip, when someone is drowning, don't shout "you should have learned how to swim".

14:17:45, 6 May 2021 review of submission by Squirrel2017[edit]


Squirrel2017 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need help getting an entry published of a person who was significant nationally, and within his own community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gerald_Starr 1. he is notable and is mentioned independently in articles as a Tom Longboat Award winner. That is why I wanted the entry along with the fact three of his fellow students AT THE SAME SCHOOL are also Tom Longboat winners and are in wikipedia (I created two of the entries and am struggling to expand the third). Four winners from one school is also significant. 2. there is not a lot of "mainstream" aka " published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" coverage as these are Indigenous athletes/persons 3. there is not a lot of "mainstream" coverage of his later career because while he was significant within his community, he worked mostly within the Indigenous community to better the lives of Indigenous people, thus little mainstream interest in this topic at the time he was working. 4. there was little Indigenous publishing at the time and those sources are not yet publicly available 5. wikipedia's desire for " published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" reflects and inflates the inherent biases against the inclusion of non-mainstream peoples into the database who are considered significant within their communities and are becoming to be understood as significant also by the mainstream, especially researchers. 6. In order to support Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action (supported federally), Indigenous persons need to be integrated into wikipedia as an overlooked peoples, so wikipedia's "notability" needs to be more nuanced than one based on "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" since published sources were mainstream and the mainstream/government has been accused of genocide with respect to the Indigenous Peoples https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/genocide-and-indigenous-peoples-in-canada


Squirrel2017 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Squirrel2017[reply]

In order:
  1. We do not accept "notability-by-osmosis" so your arguments that his schoolmates are notable, ergo he is is a nonstarter.
  2. "Published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" does not mean "mainstream media". It means the source discusses the subject at length, has competent editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, and has no direct connexion to the subject or his surrogates. There are MSM sources we emphatically reject (such as the Daily Mail) and alt-sources we accept (such as The Stranger). This belief that only MSM is reliable as a source is problematic.
  3. See above in re MSM not being the only acceptable sources.
  4. While this may sound somewhat culturally imperialist (and I understand if you do not like this point of view) the idea that an ethnic group/nationality/First Nation is the only group capable of writing about that ethnic group/nationality/First Nation in a neutral fashion is patently absurd.
  5. See above in re MSM not being the only acceptable sources. This stems from the exact same misconceptions.
  6. This is an absolute nonstarter.
Anything else? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Njinfo[edit]

Username:Njinfo10109 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahnaz_Malik

Draft:Mahnaz Malik

Hello, I editing the draft of Mahnaz Malik. I have made the page as neutral and formal tone as I can. I was informed by my last reviewer to ask about my awaiting review of the draft. Thank you

17:26:22, 6 May 2021 review of submission by Magical Isle[edit]

I have written an article on behalf of the publisher Philip Hoy which has been rejected. This is my first article. There is nowhere in the article where I have written anything other than pure fact ie it's just neutral information and doesn't seek to promote him in any way. I'm not clear where I would need citations. Also, did I go wrong by including his company website? Thanks for your help.

Magical Isle (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy link: User:Magical_Isle/sandbox)
We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reply to my question? I am new to this. I don't make any claims in my article, it's just neutral information. Can you give an example of what I should change? Should I remove his website?

@Magical Isle: claim noun A statement of something asserted to be the truth, usually without valid evidence provided.
The draft is full of claims. For example, "Hoy was born in London [on 1 June 1952], raised in Surrey, and studied at the University of York and the University of Leeds, obtaining a BA (Hons) in Philosophy from the former and a PhD in the same subject from the latter." It is your responsibility to tell the reader where you got that information, how you know it to be fact. You must cite a published reliable source that directly supports the statement, so that the reader can verify it. See citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. P.S. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:50, 6 May 2021 review of submission by MohamedArmosh110[edit]


MohamedArmosh110 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not ask a question but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:40, 6 May 2021 review of draft by S Tallim[edit]


Grateful for constructive criticism. Have revised the article accordingly. Will appreciate feedback. S Tallim (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)S Tallim[reply]

S Tallim (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:08, 6 May 2021 review of submission by Zaloth71[edit]


Questions about rejection feedback - Specifically reliable sources

Zaloth71 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

So I am trying to create a wiki entry for a small non-profit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_American_College_of_Trust_and_Estate_Counsel_Foundation

The first feedback I got was "adequately supported by reliable sources" and I am not sure what else to provide to prove that the organization exists. The foundation is mentioned on and linked to from ACTEC.org. The foundation has helped fund and produce material referenced in the entry including printed works, podcasts, videos and supporting symposia and several colleges or universities.

I read the help page, but it did not really answer my question of what we need to provide to be adequately supported by reliable sources.

The second bit of feedback I think we understand but wanted to clarify. "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

We were trying to reference some ot the recent projects we have supported, but I am guessing we should provide more detail and not just a link. Is this a correct assumption?

Thanks for your help

Proving it exists is irrelevant. Lots of things exist that don't have Wikipedia articles, and lots of things that don't exist have Wikipedia articles. Our standard for inclusion is notability, which is measured by how much third-party outlets with competent editorial oversight have written in-depth articles about the subject. As to the "advertisement" criticism, that is an indictment of how the article is written, not how it is sourced.
Note that you are obligated per the Terms of Use to disclose whether or not you are editing for pay or as part of your job. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:12:29, 6 May 2021 review of submission by MohamedArmosh110[edit]


MohamedArmosh110 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_May_6&oldid=1022709901"