Help desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12

00:06:30, 12 October 2014 request for review by Johnnyhightower8

Johnnyhightower8 (talk · contribs)

I'm trying to make an article for Tricia Aguirre and I need to know what needs to be added or omitted for the article to be accepted by Wikipedia. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyhightower8 (talk • contribs)

@Johnnyhightower8:

Declined Your draft fails our criteria for musicians. You must provide sufficient independent and reliable sources, like newspaper and magazine articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:59, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Realatheism

Realatheism (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Atheist Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel the reason given for rejecting my Atheist Science page was formulaic, kneejerk that is. Please respond to my thoughts on this question :

I have not attempted to discover what Wikipedia policies are directly, I have just jumped in with both feet. But earlier this year I saw the founder of Wikipedia telling a journalist that Wikipedia was about democratising knowledge, when responding to a question about government departments editing Wikipedia articles.

Information in an encyclopedia comes in a multitude of forms, and each form must treated according to its nature, surely. My page gave notice of a strand of a major philosophical topic that was not identified in the topic’s main page, which is protected from editing. It was rejected because it had not registered any public influence, it had only been posted on a site hosting original material.

So not only is it not for Wikipedia to publish original material, but more restrictively, Wikipedia is not to facilitate access to material that has not caught the attention of public commentators. So Wikipedia is not to fall into the role of taking notice of original work, implying that Wikipedia seeks to support establishment structures such as academia and the media, as arbiters of what is of public interest, whilst taking care not to circumvent their authority. So not only does Wikipedia not publish original material, it also will not serve as an information resource for locating original material, prior to that material being acknowledged by . . . by whom, by academics, by journalists ? In other words, by the usual agents of political authority that decide what can be known by people at large.

This kneejerk rejection of existing material without a prior public presence, makes Wikipedia into an elaboration of the machinery of knowledge control, only purporting to serve freedom, as a device for extending control into a new medium of information that looks ripe to serve freedom, and hence must be taken possession of by the machinery of knowledge control, as per the usual stratagem of our ruling political authority.

Is this how Wikipedia is meant to work, or is it the decision to reject my page that is invalid here ?

Realatheism (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission needs references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. All else is subordinate to that, for that proves that it passes WP:N. It has no such references, thus it has no place here. That is the sum total of the answer required, however philosophical you may wish to wax. Fiddle Faddle 12:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:24, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Rosekelleher

Rosekelleher (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Barbara Rubin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a few questions. First, I know there's a huge backlog of articles awaiting review, so while I'm waiting I've been making a lot of small edits to the article. I wonder, though, if that's delaying the review. Do reviewers look at the history and say, "Hmm, I see she's still working on it, I'll come back later"? If so, this could go on forever, because I'll keep compulsively tweaking it until it's approved.

Also, I put some "notes about the notes" on the Talk page.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Rosekelleher (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep polishing. We love it when folk realise that they can continue to improve a draft after submission! Fiddle Faddle 19:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:16, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Scpj

Scpj (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ely Ensign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am compiling an article about 'Ely Ensign' and ask if it is in order to use among my sources information printed in this publication itself. Scpj (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scpj (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be circular, and inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Scpj: Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent means that using Wikipedia as a source would be circular. If, however, you wish to use the Ensign as a source, it is appropriate in some cases, such as for presenting purely factual information that is not too self-serving. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Anon126. I do not mean that. You must say what you mean, not what I mean. I mean that using the Ensign to reference itself in an article on it is circular. While there are rare circumstances detailed in WP:PRIMARY when primary sources may be used, this is very unlikely in this case. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I apologize for the incorrect assumption

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]