Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 21 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 23 >
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.


September 22

[edit]

00:37:27, 22 September 2017 review of submission by Avciercan

[edit]


Avciercan (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:31:33, 22 September 2017 review of submission by J1836

[edit]


Hello,

I am contacting you because I wrote an article about a very important individual in the movement of standing rock, and I would like to know the status of the review.

I hope you are well, and thank you for your time.


J1836 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J1836. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. Given the current backlog, it probably will be reviewed in the next two weeks. From a cursory reading, I think it is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. While you wait, I suggest you try to improve it, using Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles as your guides. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:47:22, 22 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jahangir.baigal

[edit]


The article that I had Submited for a review has been declined claiming that it has not a neutral tone. Yes it has a neutral tone, but the person's contributions are basically in a language which it self needs an identity. The article is praising his contributions. And one more thing he belongs to a remote area, so lack of technology resulted in lack of information related to the person on internet. I have refered to the available evidences. I request you to consider my Case and resolve it as soon as possible. Thanking You


Jahangir.baigal (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jahangir.baigal. Based on the cited sources, the subject does not appear to be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. You may wish to explore alternative outlets that have different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:19:10, 22 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Pavel.3

[edit]


Hello, we have tried many times to create an article for Wikipedia. After many revisions we have learnt that the main issue right now is our sources. That they are not strong enough as the subject is only a mention in the article or more advertisement driven. As there are a lack of citable resources out there at the moment, I am assuming the best thing for us to do is wait till there are more reliable sources available for our submission. Would that be correct? Or, is there something else we should do?

Thanks in advance!

Pavel.3 (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavel.3. Waiting until reliable sources are available is a good plan. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:55, 22 September 2017 review of submission by The listener90

[edit]


The listener90 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why was my recent created page for "Baconsale" turned down, and what could I do to get it created?

Hi The listener90. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate compendium of everything. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have garnered significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by in depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If no reliable arms-length sources can be found on a topic, then there should not be an article dedicated to it.
Draft:Baconsale was declined because it cites no independent sources (no sources at all, in fact). To get it created, you could rewrite it using books and articles that have been written about Baconsale. If you can't find any, wait a few years; maybe some will be written. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With it being a podcast, I highly doubt someone would be writing a book about it. Is their website and over 120 episodes over 3 years not enough of a source? I'm not trying to indiscriminately add content and I'm not involved with the show. They have garnered quite the following in the West, namely Utah, and I think they have become fairly culturally significant in their time producing the podcast. They are a part of a network of podcasts as well that has a site and bio on them. If I have two websites cited for them would that be enough to get this article created?

@The listener90: By definition, nothing they produced can demonstrate their notability. Only reliable, independent sources - ones that have no vested interest in the topic - can prove notability. A podcast network, of which they are a member, is unlikely to be regarded as an arms-length source, but you're welcome to add sources and resubmit. If they're as culturally significant as you suggest, eventually someone will write articles about them in reliable sources such as academic journals, magazines, and newspapers.
Also, when you post on discussion pages please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:07, 22 September 2017 review of submission by Meenakshi Rana

[edit]

Draft:Jupiter_in_Astrology : May I know why my article has rejected. What reason? or changes i need to perform before re-submission. Meenakshi Rana (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meenakshi Rana: Hello, Meenakshi. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. The reason given for the rejection was stated quite clearly in the "decline box" at the top of your draft -- Wikipedia considers astrology to be a pseudoscience. An essay on how Jupiter will affect a person's chances of going to heaven or hell, or having a large family, or any of the other predictions that you make is never going to be accepted for publication here on Wikipedia. I recognize that this is not the response you were hoping to hear, but I hope that you will stick around Wikipedia and help develop some of the many articles that we already have. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:52, 22 September 2017 review of submission by Rpfergu

[edit]


Please give me advice on what I need to do to get this article through. My magazine is notable as it is the first of its kind (first magazine in stores to have the word "Vegan" in the title; first magazine in history to combine vegan/vegetarian culture with fitness/bodybuilding). I looked at pages for these other magazines for guidance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VegNews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkesworld_Magazine. Please note that the article I wrote has as many references as the article for VegNews, and the same proportion of independent references.

@Rpfergu: It is natural to learn by and reason from example, but it's safer to reason from official policies and guidelines. The essay "Other stuff exists" may make it clear why. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high-quality and low-quality content. The argument that articles exist that don't meet the policies and guidelines, so more such articles should be created, is not one that will convince any experienced editors. If you use an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has, such as Billboard, Portland Monthly, WSJ., Japan Echo, or The Lady's Realm.
You have no experience editing other Wikipedia articles, and have a conflict of interest with this topic, so it's no surprise that you have a shaky grasp of notability, reliability, and independence, as used here. Consequently, I strongly urge you not to attempt to write this article. If the magazine is truly notable, one of our tens of thousands of active unpaid volunteers will write an article about it. You may request that they do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles, although if you can't cite better "independent" sources than [1][2][3], your request could be counterproductive. If you insist on continuing with this draft, you may be able to get help through Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines. Among other resources, they have a writing guide for the topic area. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Vegan Health & Fitness Magazine Worldbruce, Is there anything I could change, add, or remove from my article to help it get reconsidered? Is the problem my references? Is it because the independent ones still cover the same topic (vegetarian and vegan culture)? If so, that’s a tough one because it’s a niche magazine. Just like when I read a Wikipedia article on a video game where the references are mostly videogame magazines and websites, vegan magazines are mostly written about by other vegetarian and vegan media outlets. The NYTimes and cnn.com are unlikely to do a writeup on this magazine’s formation and history. The mainstream media largely ignores the vegan movement, but it persists, in growing numbers, with vegan media outlets supporting one another in a word-of-mouth sort of way, and this magazine has been an important and historic part of that movement. You mentioned Billboard and Wall Street Journal as examples. This magazine isn’t as big as those publications, but it’s still notable. It has international distribution, which is a huge deal for a magazine that covers this topic. I don’t know if you live in the U.S., but you could go into any Whole Foods, Barnes and Noble, or Sprouts (just to name a few) and pick up a copy, and it’s also widely available in health food stores and high-end booksellers throughout Canada and the UK.

Is the problem my conflict of interest? I don’t feel that I’ve written the article using any non-neutral language or misrepresenting any facts. I read the rules – or thought I did, I might be missing something – before writing the article and I feel I was hearing “we recommend not writing about a company you work for” and not “don’t write about a company you work for.” If I misunderstood that please correct me. I’m not trying to trick anyone or misrepresent any facts. Yes, I created my Wikipedia account because I wanted to write this article. Yes, I work for the company I’m writing about. No, I don’t want it to sound like an advertisement, and that wasn’t my reason for writing this article. I’m writing it because of the countless people who have approached my coworkers and myself wanting to learn more about this magazine’s creation and history, and because of all the people, casually or otherwise, who’ve said they couldn’t believe they couldn’t find anything about this magazine’s history on Wikipedia. I’m confident that, should I give up on this article, someday someone outside the company will write an article on this magazine for Wikipedia, but I didn’t want to give up just yet because I’ve put a lot of time into it, and I don’t feel that I’ve done anything particularly or irreparably wrong here. Any advice you can give is appreciated as I am, admittedly, new to this. Rpfergu (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC) 28 September 2017[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_September_22&oldid=802827536"