Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 January 25
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 24 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 26 > |
| 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. |
January 25
[edit]02:30:38, 25 January 2018 review of submission by Anytimeanywhere
[edit]
I have no idea why my article has not been accepted.
It says that the submission appears to read more like an advertisement, but I tried to wrote it as neutral as possible.
Please let me know what is wrong with it.
Thank you
Anytimeanywhere (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Anytimeanywhere This draft (and the previously deleted version) was not accepted, due to it being Wikipedia:advertising. It is not written from a Neutral point of view. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
05:46:58, 25 January 2018 review of submission by POLLY CHINELA
[edit]
My submission has been declined by someone by the name of LACYPAPERCLIP whose account is permanently suspended. How can someone with a suspended account be allowed to deny submissions? The reason this person gives is that the subject was not sufficiently well known. This is a pianist whose career encompassed six decades, who recorded for a prestigious, well known classical label which is now part of the UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP conglomerate, who gave concerts all over the world, taught at a major US University, and whose obituary was published by The New York Times and other national and international newspapers. This is not enough? This is not considered achievement enough to merit a Wikipedia entry? I would hate to think that because this subject was Cuban born, although he lived almost his entire life in the United States and was a naturalized American citizen, the reason for denial is based on the current political climate of racism and anti-immigrant hatred. That said, I would like to point out that this is my FIRST Wikipedia submission and being totally new at this, I may or may not be up to par as far as following your formats, etc. So I would appreciate any help you can give me as far as that is concerned. Whatever I need to fix, I will gladly fix. But to say that Mr. Echaniz is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry is ludicrous. Obviously, LACYPAPERCLIP knows absolutely nothing about classical music and classical musicians. I find this person's rejection of my article arbitrary, unjust, and prejudiced, and most of all it denotes ignorance of the subject matter at hand.
POLLY CHINELA (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @POLLY CHINELA:, I am sorry to see that you article was rejected, and I don't know anything regarding LACYPAPERCLIP, however, I know that I would have rejected the article as well. The issue, is that the article doesn't show, with the references given that it passes WP:GNG, which is the big milestone. If the article is of someone of note, (And from what you have said, it may well be! :) ), then we need those sources that prove this to be evident in the article. If he is mentioned in papers, such as the New York Times, then you should place the proof of this in the references. Looking at the references right now, your references go as follows:
1 - Good reference from University of Rochester. 2 - List of songs - Fine for referencing, but doesn't help towards GNG 3 - NY Times article - It didn't look like much, without knowing it's a thing. Many papers have an obituary column, so if this is different, I'd cite this as a paper source. 4 - This is a search page - Not sure what you are trying to show with this 5 - EcoRed, as far as I can tell, is only a Wiki. Wiki's are not considered reliable sources.# 6 - YouTube search list. Doesn't help towards GNG.
- You should also see the {{cite web}} template, as this would help your article. Hope this helps Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi POLLY CHINELA. Wikipedia policy discourages ad hominem arguments. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so one of our core principles is to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. The reason the draft was declined is not that the subject is not sufficiently well known, or does not deserve a Wikipedia entry, but that the draft fails to show this.
- Notability is gauged not by a person's accomplishments, but by the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Discogs and EcuRed are not reliable sources because they are user-generated. Pages of search results are not reliable sources because they are unstable, they vary by location, time, browsing history, etc. The draft may cite individual articles from The New York Times, but not a page of search results from there. Not only is a page of YouTube search results not a reliable source, but individual YouTube videos are generally not reliable or are otherwise problematic, see WP:ELPEREN.
- Other core policies that the draft violates are verifiability and neutral point of view. The best way to address the first, aside from using better sources, is to use inline citations to show where every fact in the draft came from. To address the second, get rid of or attribute opinion like "justly renowned", "critically acclaimed interpreter", "inexplicably", "this is a shame", "highly praised", "those interested in the digital release of the Westminster discography of José Echániz are urged to ..." Wikipedia is not a platform for anyone to advance a cause. You may find it helpful to study some of Wikipedia's best biographies of musicians. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- User:POLLY CHINELA - I think that User:Worldbruce has given you excellent advice. I will only add a few comments. First, it is very unusual for a draft to be reviewed and declined by an account that is then blocked for sockpuppetry, but eventually everything that can go wrong will go wrong, and a few things that cannot go wrong will go wrong anyway. Second, the draft is not formatted well, which makes it distracting to read; please see WP:Markup for how to mark up section headings. Third, as the other editors have noted, it isn't enough for the subject to be notable; the article itself must show that the subject is notable. Fourth, as noted, although you are frustrated, complaining about ignorance or racism (which are real problems) is very seldom helpful. Asking how to improve your draft, which you did, is. Worldbruce has given you good advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)