Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 February 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 3 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 5 > |
| 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. |
February 4
[edit]01:53:16, 4 February 2016 review of submission by Doubledoc
[edit]
I managed to create an article about Christiane WOOPEN except for her picture. I had uploaded the picture in my Wiki sandbox, and it seems to have been uploaded to WIKI Commons as " File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Picture Ethikrat.png ", yet I did not manage to insert it into the article which I have uploaded into the live area of WIKIPEDIA. Please advise or amend. Thanks!
Doubledoc (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
As I was unable to understand the nicks & nooks of the talk and a few of the tags that are being used in there.DrRajKumarChabbewal (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrRajKumarChabbewal: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk! The first thing to note is that if you have a connection with the subject of the draft Draft:Dr. Raj Kumar Chabbewal, then you have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editing and submission of autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
- As for the draft, it is written in a thoroughly promotional style. Wikipedia articles must be written in an encyclopedic tone that seeks to neutrally, objectively discuss the subject. We cannot use conversational language or attempt to promote or advertise a person, place or thing. For example, language like "A man of myriad talents, Dr. Rajkumar stands out for his sense of commitment, responsibility, dedication, honesty, integrity and sheer passion in all his undertakings" is not neutral. It promotes Rajkumar on the basis of his personal qualities. There's also a second problem with a sentence like that—it's not supported by a reliable source, so the reader has no way to know whether it is true. That's why referencing is so important on Wikipedia.
- In summary, the entire article would need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It would also need some inline citations throughout the draft. However, if there is a conflict of interest at play, then I would strongly suggest leaving the draft be for now. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to delete this submission, please. I plan to include a bit of the material in a reworking of the 'lipreading' entry, still in my sandbox
RuthBCCampbell (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi RuthBCCampbell - I've put in the request for you. If there's anything on that page you would like to save, please move it to your sandbox. Onel5969 TT me 12:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
12:46:52, 4 February 2016 review of submission by BLEUEwater
[edit]- BLEUEwater (talk · contribs)
The first submission of this new entry "Temba" was rejected based on the notable criteria. Is it possible to place a comment on this issue for the re-submit? Would like to highlight the additional qualifications of the criteria - specially:
Additional criteria
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using
 |
for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion.
Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
Creative professionals Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
People notable for only one event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
- Hello BLEUEwater. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It is possible to make a comment on the draft by using Template:Afc comment (the instructions are on that template page). However, unfortunately, the subject fails all the alternative criteria at this point. The draft does not have one single reference that is independent of Temba which attests to him passing any of them. In fact, there is not one single independent source about him in the draft at all. Voceditenore (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
SAGAR RAJ SAH (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- @SAGAR RAJ SAH: Do you have a specific question about the draft? /wiae /tlk 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
16:28:30, 4 February 2016 review of submission by GestaltPastoralCareGrow
[edit]- GestaltPastoralCareGrow (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
GestaltPastoralCareGrow (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Draft: Gestalt Pastoral Care - Article submission declined
Feb. 4, 2016
The nonprofit organization, Gestalt Pastoral Care, was requested to produce more third party sources for its proposed Wikipedia article. There are not many previously published sources as of 2016 which meet the third party requirement. Most of the published sources about Gestalt Pastoral Care are written by its founder, Tilda Norberg, or teachers and workers within the organization. Any suggestions about how we can fix the problem of neutral, third party sources and proceed with getting the article on Wikipedia? Thank you, Alison
- Note: Cross-posted at WP:EAR#Draft denial. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- And answered there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
16:32:09, 4 February 2016 review of submission by Alexawhite
[edit]- Alexawhite (talk · contribs)
Typo on wikipedia page
Alexawhite (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Alexwhite:
Fixed. In the future, if you find a typo on Wikipedia (and I'm sure you will, as typos tend to crop up online), don't be afraid to be bold and fix it yourself! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
