Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 December 24
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 23 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | Current help desk > |
| 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. |
December 24
[edit]Request on 08:58:35, 24 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight
[edit]
My draft article on MGTOW was rejected because it was claimed the submission was "humorous" or a "hoax". My submission was most assuredly neither humorous nor a hoax. Indeed, it meets all the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY: a topic which has received (1) significant coverage in (2) multiple sources, (3) reliable sources, and sources which are (4) independent of the subject. It appears the reviewer has not even examined the references provided: The MGTOW phenomenon has been described in detail in books by prominent authors such as Helen Smith, Kay Hymowitz, Philip Zimbardo, and in many mainstream or notable newspapers, websites and other sources, including the Sunday Times, Breitbart News Network, Vice Magazine, the Daily Mail, Reason magazine, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, the Independent, the Irish Independent, Independent Journal Review, the Huffington Post, Wales Online, Pan-American Post, InfoWars, Metro, Psychology Today, the Daily Beast, PJ Media, the BBC, Tommy Sotomayor, the Tom Leykis Show, xoJane, Business Insider, the Conservative Woman, Women24, es:eldiario.es, WorldNetDaily, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and others. (EDIT: removed citations)
How can I appeal the decision to reject my draft article? (I know from experience that MGTOW can be sensitive topic, and some people have strong knee-jerk emotional reactions to it. So please make sure you are not simply rejecting my article just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT.)
I would also like to add that user The Anome, who is a highly experienced (top 86) editor of Wikipedia, agrees with me, as he has previously (December 14, 2015) stated that "the phenomenon does indeed now appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability" (source).
—MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 08:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- @User:MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight - Actually you do not appeal or even argue about an obviously incorrect review - you simply ignore it and continue improving the draft. On the other hand you also do not "machine-gun" your readers with umpteen "references" all stuffed into a single paragraph which only exists to show off the "references". The mere fact that a topic was mentioned or appeared in a newspaper, magazine, tv show, etc is of very little significance. What does matter is the substance of what the newspaper, magazine, tv show, etc actually said about the topic. So please simply delete the entire last paragraph of the lead, and do the same to your post above. You don't need to reproduce the content of a draft here, we already know where to find it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I sincerely do not understand how I am supposed to improve the notability: the topic was not merely "mentioned", but extensively/significantly discussed. If multiple long (multi-page) articles devoted to the phenomenon in multiple prominent newspapers, and even several book-length treatises devoted to the the phenomenon, are not sufficient to establish WP:NOTABILITY, then I sincerely do not know what is. I am also surprised at the complaint about "umpteen" references: almost a decade ago (in 2006) the article page on MGTOW was repeatedly deleted due to a lack of references. I therefore wished to enumerate the many newly published references near the beginning, not necessarily for the benefit of the general readers, but for the benefit of the Wikipedia editors/reviewers. I concede that it may be poor style to "machine-gun" the citations, but as I understand it, the purpose of the "Articles for Creation" is to determine whether or not a subject is notable, not whether my text is well-written or not: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.". —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 16:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi again MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight - I'm afraid you've overlooked where I said "...an obviously incorrect review" - to put it bluntly, the first reviewer was incompetent. The notability of the subject of your draft is well established, so please regard that first decline as if it never happened. (BTW we never write for other editors/reviewers in the article itself - our audience is the general reader.) I'll post more specific editing advice in a review comment on the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Please also create the pages MGTOW (and Men going their own way, which should be a redirect). On the Web, according to the number of Google search results (hits), "MGTOW" is used much more frequently than the full phrase "Men Going Their Own Way". So MGTOW should be the primary page. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 13:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight: if you'd like those redirects created, the best place to request that is at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, a page designed specifically for redirect requests. Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 00:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Please also create the pages MGTOW (and Men going their own way, which should be a redirect). On the Web, according to the number of Google search results (hits), "MGTOW" is used much more frequently than the full phrase "Men Going Their Own Way". So MGTOW should be the primary page. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 13:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi again MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight - I'm afraid you've overlooked where I said "...an obviously incorrect review" - to put it bluntly, the first reviewer was incompetent. The notability of the subject of your draft is well established, so please regard that first decline as if it never happened. (BTW we never write for other editors/reviewers in the article itself - our audience is the general reader.) I'll post more specific editing advice in a review comment on the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- I sincerely do not understand how I am supposed to improve the notability: the topic was not merely "mentioned", but extensively/significantly discussed. If multiple long (multi-page) articles devoted to the phenomenon in multiple prominent newspapers, and even several book-length treatises devoted to the the phenomenon, are not sufficient to establish WP:NOTABILITY, then I sincerely do not know what is. I am also surprised at the complaint about "umpteen" references: almost a decade ago (in 2006) the article page on MGTOW was repeatedly deleted due to a lack of references. I therefore wished to enumerate the many newly published references near the beginning, not necessarily for the benefit of the general readers, but for the benefit of the Wikipedia editors/reviewers. I concede that it may be poor style to "machine-gun" the citations, but as I understand it, the purpose of the "Articles for Creation" is to determine whether or not a subject is notable, not whether my text is well-written or not: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.". —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 16:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
09:31:21, 24 December 2015 review of submission by Orji Maduka Fidelis
[edit]
Orji Maduka Fidelis (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please can I resubmit the article for review by opening another account?
- @Orji Maduka Fidelis: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. It seems as though there are two versions of your draft: the original one at Draft:Orji Maduka Fidelis and a second one at User:Orji Maduka Fidelis Telma/sandbox/Orji Maduka Fidelis. Please do not create multiple versions of the same draft; it will not help the draft be reviewed any quicker or improve the draft's chances of being accepted. Instead, stick with one version of the draft. Work on that according to the feedback you receive from reviewers.
- This means that opening another account and resubmitting the article will not help. The usual rule on Wikipedia is one person, one account. Note also that the subject may not meet Wikipedia's athlete notability criteria and may be deleted if it does not meet that threshold. Thank you, and let us know if you have further questions, /wia🎄/tlk 19:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)