Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 July 26
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 25 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 27 > |
| 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. |
July 26
[edit]07:12:14, 26 July 2016 review of submission by AxelRR
[edit]Hello, I created a new page that I think clearly follows Wikipedia's guidelines for establishing notability (in this case, secondary coverage and academic accolades). However, I have twice been stuck with an editor who has rejected the page for reasons that seem to go outside of Wikipedia's criteria. He/she rejected the page once because of "literary holdings" which is a measure that would only access part of the work being done by the person I write about, and once for no particular reason other than that the editor thought it would be "better to wait"... This strikes me as vigilante editing. Is there anything I can do, other than resubmitting and hoping to get a new editor?AxelRR (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
AxelRR (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi AxelRR. Writing is not, in and of itself, notable. It's simply part of the job of professors. What specific criteria of WP:NACADEMIC do you believe Teitelbaum satisfies? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Worldbruce. As the article shows, his commentary has been the topic of much discussion in major media. The articles he has written are not the evidence for the notability, but the commentary on him, which is included in the Wiki article, is. Add to that a significant academic accolade. Those reasons seemed adequate to me, as well as the people I showed this to at the help desk earlier. AxelRR (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @AxelRR: So, to be perfectly clear, you're not claiming that he satisfies any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC? You are welcome to argue that he meets WP:GNG, but having one of his op-eds quoted in the commentary section of CNSNews.com and in National Review's blog The Corner does not help your case. They do not constitute significant coverage of Teitelbaum. As for Brown University, it is not an independent source with respect to the granting of the Joukowsky Outstanding Dissertation Award, and so does not help demonstrate notability, but perhaps you can find a source, other than the awarding organization and awardee, who covered the award.--Worldbruce (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Worldbruce, I believe it satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:NACADEMIC, the latter in the sense that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." As for CNSNews.com and the National Review, I don't see why those wouldn't be considered legitimate sources - they are well known and widely read, even though the latter is a blog (and they're discussing different op-eds, btw). Note also that they are two of four outside media I mention (the others are Nyheter Idag and Alingsås Tidning) who have covered and commented on his public writings. There are plenty more, mostly in Sweden. I do, however, see your point about the Brown award. It is mentioned in the media of other universities, but that doesn't seem like a solid source. His website mentions having won another award, the "2013 Applied Research Award, Institute for the Study of Radical Movements," though there I see no coverage of it. But must coverage of academic accolades meet the same standards as WP:GNG secondary coverage??? That doesn't seem indicated to me in the guidelines... Nonetheless, the academics notwithstanding, this still seems like the discussion of him in media is plenty to qualify as notable. AxelRR (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also just added another article and a feature interview on Swedish National Radio. There is a third academic prize as well, the "The Richard Waterman Junior Scholar Prize (PMSSEM)," though no secondary coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelRR (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Sveriges Radio citation is helpful. The awards won't prove notability without independent coverage. As you've resubmitted the draft, I've left my final comment there. You may dislike their message, but reviewers are trying to make the draft and encyclopedia as good as they can be. Assume good faith and take the advice offered. As long as the draft is improving, you're welcome to resubmit it, but do not edit against consensus. If it ever reaches the point where you're submitting the same content in the hope of a different result, the draft is likely to be deleted on the grounds of tendentious editing. Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- ShellShuttle (talk · contribs)
Hello,
I am finding revision easy, but pleasing the Wikipedia Gods more difficult. I have added MANY references and changed most of the text, format, etc.
Please tell me exactly what you want changed, deleted, or added to my article on New Mexico Commission for the Blind.
also, the instructions above say "white boxes" and I only see ONE box. What is considered the header bar and which box is under that? Your feedback needs to be more specific if you want excellent articles that fit your parameters for submission. Feeling frustrated by the "no rules" statements in the instructions, then the "denied and deleted" articles after I feel I am following the "rules."
ShellShuttle (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
ShellShuttle (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I will comment at this time that the draft contains external links, which are not permitted. Also, please do not put markup in headings. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand about the white boxes comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You complain about articles being "denied and deleted", but I see no evidence that you have submitted anything that was deleted. It is true that your article has been declined twice, but articles that are declined at AFC are kept in order to permit the author to improve them so that they will be accepted later (with a few exceptions such as copyright violation or attack pages that don't apply to your article). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
18:13:06, 26 July 2016 review of submission by ShellShuttle
[edit]- ShellShuttle (talk · contribs)
Got a reply to a recent question, but of course it makes no sense. What is WP:ELlexternal link ? ShellShuttle (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC) ShellShuttle (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- That should be external link, a link to our policy about external links in articles. (Summary: they are usually bad, don't use them.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
18:16:15, 26 July 2016 review of submission by ShellShuttle
[edit]- ShellShuttle (talk · contribs)
If external links are NOT permitted, why does the Link Addition button in the article creation page contain a place to put one? ShellShuttle (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC) ShellShuttle (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- An article is allowed a section of especially relevant external links outside the body of the article for particularly relevant but lengthy content, and for a single link to a website controlled by the subject of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Amrarafa (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- If Aljazeera and the Washington Post covered the project, provide references to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
22:42:11, 26 July 2016 review of submission by Behal509
[edit]
Behal509 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Trying a second series of attempts to get an AFC posted. Due to lack of reference build-out, posting for: Keyword Gerhard Medicus was deleted last December. I reposted for review ...really hoping I am close this time. I think it is close to being ready. The German version has been accepted. Thanks again, Harry Behal509 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article in question is Draft:Gerhard Medicus. I think that the author means that he failed to provide enough references, and that, after six months, a previous version of the draft was deleted under WP:G13. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)