Help desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2

14:42:11, 2 June 2018 review of submission by Mashsegli

Mashsegli (talk · contribs)
- User talk:WakingApp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I dont understand why it was declined... i placed many links and cite. can omeone help me?

Mashsegli (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mashsegli, Greetings to you. 2 reviewers have rejected your draft and did provide comments on the draft page besides info on the pink box. Please read them. In short the subject failed to me organisation notability guidelines - see NCORP and secondly sources provided to support the content need to be independent, reliable source (secondary source) - see WP:RS. For info on reliable, independent, primary, secondary, tertiary sources and etc plse scroll up (15 or so message from this one) to message titled "16:46:49, 28 May 2018 review of submission by Soniaang". Thank you CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:18, 2 June 2018 review of submission by Giovannihofmann

Giovannihofmann (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Floris Visser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sir/Madam, I am requesting a re-review on the article draft of Floris Visser, for I got the following reaction by a user called Bkissin ": This submission appears to be taken from https://www.operamusica.com/artist/floris-visser/biography#biography. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here." The claim that the text appears to be taken from operamusica.com is helas not true. Some facts might resemble - which is logic with certain events or dates or titles -, but not the text itself or its structure. Furthermore the copyright on the official biography of opera director Floris Visser lies with Alferink Artists Management, his management worldwide. While creating this page I was in contact with Alferink Artists Management to get the latest and updated biographical material of director Floris Visser and specifically got it copyright free, to avoid any copyright claims, but also to check whether the information in other sources and sites like operamusica.com & many other references and sites was correct; which it wasn't always or it wasn't up to date, so I wrote and rewrote, triple checked a lot - note I used: over 70 sources & references - and also left out a lot from the official biography, otherwise the article simply would have gotten too long, and I only wanted to describe facts, and quote serious and reliable sources, newspapers & other publications. So my question now is: how should I proceed? I followed all the guidelines to my feeling, and did not violate any copyright rules. Please advice me, for this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and I don't really know how to proceed at the moment, which I find a huge pity. All best wishes, Giovannihofmann Giovannihofmann (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giovannihofmann Greetings to you. Since you have contact the subject and input the info into the article that means you have conflict of interest (COI) (either COI by affiliation or paid COI) here. Wikpedia strongly discourage editor with COI to edit affected article as editor might/would not able to write subjectively/ with neutral point of view. You need to disclose COI in your user page as well as in the article talk page. Pls visit THIS PAGE to disclose your COI and do open both the templates for more info. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cassiopeia, Thank you for your reply. I believe there is a slight misunderstanding here to what I did. I contacted the worldwide management of the subject, nb: not the subject itself, and only to retrieve possible updates on biographical material, which I of course then checked with all other sources - hence my 78 notes, sources, references etc. - and to make sure there would be no copyright claims since wikipedia is so strict with these. So I don't really see which conflict of interest is there. I believe getting books or newspapers or any other source from a regular library to check your facts and figures is exactly the same to what I did. So to my point of view there is no COI, only proper research, and making sure there are no copyright claims. All best, Giovannihofmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovannihofmann (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Floris Visser is now a redirect to Floris Visser, which has been deleted as a copyvio. So non-admins will be unable to comment on this. Maproom (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Maproom:, I hope you don't mind me asking, but I assume that you are involved in deleting my article on opera director Floris Visser. You call it a copyvio in your comment above, might I ask the reason for this? For I thought that we solved all this already yesterday in my contact with Bkissin, since he accepted and moved my article to the main site. Looking forward to your reaction. Giovannihofmann (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giovannihofmann, I have had nothing to do with article or its deletion. When I read the messages above, I thought I'd look at it, and form my own opinion on whether there has been a copyvio. But I found I can't, the article has been deleted, and as a non-admin I have no way of finding what was in it. I wrote what I did above so that other non-admins won't waste their time as I did. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Maproom:, thank you for your swift reply. The article has indeed been deleted before any of us could have a proper discussion about it. Hopefully one of the admin's will react. Thanks again for your interest. Giovannihofmann (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giovannihofmann: Hi Giovanni, Greetings to you. Understand that you are upset as you created page has been deleted (Floris Visser) so quickly. Wikipedia considers copyvio as a serious matter as it entails legal implications. Under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, articles that infringe copyvio would be nominated for speedy deletion. Upon checking there are 3 articles involved which your article seemed to copy from, respectively 85%, 33% and 33% respectively of your article content. I have only reported the 85% article. I could not read the article now as it is deleted by DGG (admin). You have contested this nomination and sought help on four different talk pages (Floris Visser talk page, Article for Creation Help Desk, Bkissin's talk page and my talk page), for such I will move this conversation and the links to your talk page for consolidating all the "talks" in one page for DGG to assess and evaluate the validity the copyvio deletion. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:41, 2 June 2018 review of submission by Dwp152

Dwp152 (talk · contribs)

After an initial rejection, I resubmitted this article in late March. I have not heard anything. has a new determination been made? Thank you! Dwp152 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dwp152 Greetings. If you meant the Draft article of Tony Kiser, then pls see here [1] as the article has been deleted under copyright infringement violation. Please visit WP:Your first article to familiar yourself in article contribution in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:59, 2 June 2018 review of submission by Seanstrain3001

Seanstrain3001 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Progrès Niederkorn 2–0 Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was rejected because a "report of a single game is not notable", however, there are many articles which are of single games. For instance: Berwick Rangers F.C. 1–0 Rangers F.C., Rangers F.C. 2–2 Celtic F.C. (1987) and, most relevantly, Lincoln Red Imps 1–0 Celtic.

These are all articles written about single games because they have enough significance to warrant an article about them, which my draft also falls under. The game had a massive impact on the future of the manager of Rangers F.C. For this reason I don't understand why the article was rejected. Seanstrain3001 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seanstrain3001. Individual games can be notable. The relevant guidelines are WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:NEWSEVENT, and WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS emphasizes that being newsworthy is not a sufficient reason for inclusion, events must have enduring significance to warrant an encyclopedia article. Contrasting the draft with similar articles usually isn't productive. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. Instead, review the notability guidelines and make your argument from them and the sources.

I recommend that you first put your case to the declining reviewer, Legacypac, and have them elaborate on their concerns. From that discussion you may find ways of improving the draft to satisfy them. You may also get useful input from your colleagues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. I would be interested in whether the match received coverage outside the UK, and to what degree and in what way it was covered beyond the week in which it took place. If the lasting significance of the game was the sacking of the manager, that part of the draft could be beefed up. He wasn't fired until three months later, and the team lost other games, so it would help if sources said at the time of the loss to Progrès that the "writing was on the wall" for him, or at the time of his firing cited the loss as the primary reason.

If you're able to improve the draft, simply resubmit it for a fresh review. If you reach an impasse, by all means return here, or you may move the draft to article space yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce, The match was covered by news articles in Ireland and France that I have found, and under WP:SPORTSEVENT it states that a game: "that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game" is allowed to be an article in it's own right.

Furthermore, the BBC stated specifically in their article about the sacking of Pedro Caixinha that "This campaign started with a shock Europa League qualifying defeat by Luxembourg minnows Progres Niederkorn in July.", and that his management "has been a desperate mess from start to finish." The game was definitely notable as it is considered one :of Rangers' worst defeats in their history. Would it be acceptable to create an article? Seanstrain3001 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to try to change my mind don't bother. If I found a game specific page I'd send it to deletion. I don't think individual games in the Stanley Cup or World Series are capable of being individually notable for anything as permanent as a wikipedia article. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac - It seems pretty notable to me. Upset victories, and matches in general in association football are often created as wikipedia pages. Heck, almost every single final, for a cup major cup competition are considered notable by WP:WikiProject Football. The article clearly has enough press to pass WP:GNG from the BBC, Guardian, and Evening Times. The only issue would be if it was lasting, but with it already being called one of the worst losses for a Scottish team of all time, it beats that. See also Lincoln Red Imps 1–0 Celtic, or my team Yeovil Town 2–1 Sunderland (1949) to see that singlular matches can be notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]