Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 1 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 3 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


December 2

[edit]

00:54:32, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Flewisss

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia community,

I was hoping someone could provide me with more specific feedback regarding my draft. I am a first time editor trying to put together a page about Bill Russell, an illustrator in the San Francisco Bay Area. My submission was rejected because the article "read too much like an advertisement." I felt I included numerous non-biased sources and my tone was neutral (perhaps I am wrong, feel free to disagree here), so I am guessing what got flagged was the external links section listing some of Russell's personal websites. I was trying to be thorough since I saw similar sections on other illustrator's pages, but in reading about what Wiki considers spam, the help pages listed external links as a big no-no. I wanted to know if that section was indeed the issue, or does the whole article need restructuring? Thank you, I am enjoying learning about the community here!

Flewisss (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Flewisss[reply]

Flewisss (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:32, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Wykax

[edit]
   11:39:32, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Wykax

Wykax (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wykax You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, as it is nowhere close to being suitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:51, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Akarnikos

[edit]

Please review this article, Haris Stampoulids is playing profession soccer now and I've updated all reference. He is also in spanish wiki: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charalampos_Stamboulidis - Charalampos Stamboulidis, better known as Haris Stamboulidis, represented here as his Greek name.

I'm hoping you can now approve this article. Akarnikos (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akarnikos If this player has now appeared in a game in a fully professional league, you should appeal to the reviewer who rejected your draft. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:43, 2 December 2020 review of submission by 2401:4900:4BB6:EB61:2DC2:692C:2A5C:373C

[edit]


it was mentioned that this draft is blatant book promotion. However this, not a blatant book promotion, rather this is an article about an academic, researcher subject with international contribution and reputation. requesting you to have relook as many inline citation and external links are now provided in the draft article 2401:4900:4BB6:EB61:2DC2:692C:2A5C:373C (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk)`

12:39:26, 2 December 2020 review of submission by 103.61.196.199

[edit]


103.61.196.199 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:36, 2 December 2020 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:ED6A:E0EC:D1FD:8889

[edit]


Hi. This page seems to lack that yellow notice that it is being reviewed. Can someone help? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:ED6A:E0EC:D1FD:8889 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks--184.153.21.19 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:09:10, 2 December 2020 review of draft by Sabulhab

[edit]


Hi, I have resubmitted the article with 10 more references/external link, as suggested by the draft reviewer. I can add more if needed. Also, I am aware that the article involves myself, but reading over the help pages, they said it is ok to write autobiography article since it will be open for future corrections from other editors.

I would like to know if all is ok now. Thanks.

Sabulhab (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabulhab: I'm not sure what help pages you read, but WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY says fairly unambiguously, Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at one of our quality Featured Articles, like Priyanka Chopra, you'll notice that in the body of the article, there are inline citations that support various claims and facts stated in the article. And if you scroll down, all of those various inline citations are collected at the bottom of the page. The draft article about you would need these as well. Which reference says when you were born? Which reference says where you went to school? Which reference talks about the creation of the Mutamathil Type Style? Which reference indicates how many original Arabic and bilingual font families you created? All of that would have to be supported inline, and it's almost certain that the article could be declined quickly for a lack of adequate inline referencing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I did read the Wikipedia policy on autobiographies. It says autobiography articles are strongly discouraged, as you have wrote. Clearly this does not say forbidden. Therefore I went ahead and wrote one, with good faith to open it to editors input. The other option is to use paid editors! I do not like to support that trend in Wikipedia.
Finally, the external links I provided verify my education and coverage.
As for your question which help Wikipedia pages I am referencing regarding the Notability criteria, I am referring to "Wikipedia:Notability (people)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
Sabulhab (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sabulhab It is true that autobiographical articles are not absolutely forbidden. But it is a rare thing for someone to actually succeed in writing one. I have never seen anyone succeed at it in my eight and a half years here. But Wikipedia is not interested in what people want to say about themselves, and is not a place for people to merely tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
In order for you to succeed at that, you would in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself, and everything you have accomplished in your life, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage(not press releases, brief mentions, or other primary sources). Most people cannot do that about themselves, even though it is technically possible. If you truly feel that you are one of the rare people who can do that, you are free to extensively rewrite your draft. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I don't mean to argue but if you have never seen anyone succeed at it in your eight and a half years this does not make it right. How about being the first? I am clearly qualified via the Academics Criteria. This is not an auto bio. Just info page.
BTW: I noticed you ignored commenting on which Wikipedia help pages I am reading regarding the Academics Notability criteria, even though you asked me. Here is is my answer again if you want to comment:
I am referring to "Wikipedia:Notability (people)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabulhab (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sabulhab It is an autobiography because you are writing it about yourself. As I said, if you truly think that you are one of the very few people who can write in the the manner I stated above and succeed at it, you may proceed, but your draft will need to radically change from its current state. Wikipedia articles are not mere "info pages" that merely provide information, they summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am sorry, you still think my bio is not for a notable person. I can point to many many others who are not even close to notability on Wikipedia. Notability depends on the field you are in. As academics, as you will read in your own help pages below, are notable by definition if they produced heavy research work and publications in their fields. I have plenty and supplied them. At this point, I am confused and don't know how to handle this. As I said, I looked into your help pages and clearly see that I fulfill you notability criteria, basic and additional. Please see below with my comments under each.

Basic criteria "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject."

I have supplied 3 articles from major widely circulating newspapers. I forgot about other coverage over the years and I am too old to hunt for them now.

Additional criteria

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."

I am a known researcher and scholar working in a major university who produced very original publications and research, 7 books and plenty of articles. I got lot of grants. Your help page says "academics" are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. I belong to the "academics" criteria. I have even supplied 3 "secondary sources" without needing them according to your help page. On CUNY (the City University of New York) Academics work, I just reached more than 16,500 downloads from around the world of my research/publication, making me rank in the top 10%.

Creative professionals

  • "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

I am widely notable by peers because of my unique (but controversial to many) non-traditional Arabic font design style. I have designed 45 original font families over the past two decades. I am among the most active Arabic font designers in general. For sure, I am the most active non-traditional Arabic font designer in the world. Many articles and theses which have referenced my work. I am too old to go and hunt for them.

  • "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

The New York Times says I introduced a significant new concept, or technique. Many other sources said that too. Why do I need to list more than three secondary sources, when I clearly fulfilled the notability criteria based only on the "Academics" additional criteria that I listed above.

Please help and reconsider.

Sabulhab (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabulhab Please make follow up comments in this existing section, do not create additional sections. You've been told how you can proceed if you insist on pursuing this. You would be better off to allow independent editors to take note of you and write about you. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:12, 2 December 2020 review of draft by ArekSmith

[edit]


ArekSmith (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) ArekSmith (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Can you please help me with creating the Lowell Police Department (Indiana) article[reply]

@ArekSmith: the first thing you want to do is looks for reliable independent sources. Then you want to expand the draft with the information from them. Make sure that you use your own words. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:24, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Wordforester

[edit]


I'm having a hard time understanding why this article was Declined. The stated reason was that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." However, it was patterned after other articles written about Psychologists and reads in a similar style, like the one linked below. Can some point out specifically what part(s) read like an advertising? Some help to better understand this would be very appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_E._Kazdin

Wordforester (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:24, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Carlden10

[edit]

Hi can you please give me a clear explanation of why the article was rejected? I don't see any reasoning on the article submission page. Thank you. Carlden10 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlden10 You were given a reason, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Please read Your first article and the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read and I saw that, but I'm completely unclear how it's not notable. That isn't specific to me. I sited all the sources that mention the subject (which was the argument I was told months ago), I removed all "interview-type" publications (which was the second issue), and I added publications like Elle and Billboard (which was the third issue and those are certainly notable sources). Otherwise, it sounds like I'm being told that music artists/fashion designers are not notable. Please advise and thank you for your time. Carlden10 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlden10 Musicians have their own notability criteria. Which of them do you assert this singer meets? A fashion designer would probably fall under the creative professional criteria. The sources seemed to be routine announcements and not significant coverage.
Do you have a connection with this person? 331dot (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for musician alone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles "Criteria for musicians and ensembles"): #1, 2, 4, 10, 12 (all specifically referenced in my article submission and she was featured on Billboard charts for two separate songs). My relation to the subject is covering their career after seeing their performances over the past 10 years. Carlden10 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Hello? I haven't heard back regarding my Radmila Lolly submission and now user "Worldbruce" (I don't know how to link them here) says my submission wasn't rejected for notability but for being "egregiously promotional". I'm begging for help as I'm getting unclear explanation from everyone and conflicting feedback. Now I'm confused as to what is promotional about the article I submitted. Please help, thanks.[reply]

22:52:40, 2 December 2020 review of submission by GentlemenistZero

[edit]


I'm literally trying to add a wikipedia page for myself... to document my achievements pursuits, for public relations, etc... why do you people keep declining my post. This post is 100% legitimate. GentlemenistZero (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I believed that someone would seriously call themselves stupid in their autobiography, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion, and we don't care about people who aspire, we care about people who have achieved. WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GentlemenistZero Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your public relations or in otherwise aiding your career. There are alternative forums where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:57:21, 2 December 2020 review of submission by 97.115.156.57

[edit]

This page was moved to draft with the explanation "Quarantine likely covert advertising". I was curious so I was reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines around this, but I can't seem to find anything to back it up. I reviewed WP:DRAFT but I don't see anything about moving a page to Draft for "quarantine" or for issues related to the tone of the article. The guidelines state "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD." but this was clearly not followed on this page. Can someone please share the guidelines for moving a page to draft in this situation? I think there are many articles that need to be moved to draft for advertising but I'm not 100% sure if this is allowed. 97.115.156.57 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator was blocked indefinitely for advertising, which is a violation of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. Also, someone who is editing for pay, but who has not disclosed that, would be violating WP:PAID.So, moving the article, which has the stench of promotion wafting from it, to draft space, would be to metaphorically quarantine it. I'm sure you can understand that we wouldn't want anyone getting paid for something they were doing in violation of our community policies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat common practice to move articles that would be a slam-dunk AfD deletion to draft space so that they can be worked on, as an alternative to the AfD debate and deletion. It gives the author (or anyone else interested in editing the page) more time to work on the article and get more used to Wikipedia policies, and it's less likely to torque off a contributor than a deletion debate will. Of course, this generally only happens with articles that do have some potential, but are either too promotional, mercenary, or too wanting source-wise to be fit for article space.
Moving a page to draft from article space also ensures the not-ready article doesn't get indexed on search engines, limiting any potential fallout from having an article that isn't up to par being near the top of search results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: @Jéské Couriano: wheres the policy for this commn practice? Draft:Unify Square this article shouldnt be moved to draft since it is not new, see WP:ATD-I. states this is for newly created ones and incubaiton not intended to be a backdoor to deletion. WP:ADMASK says nothng about moving to draft just to add tag as advert and rewrite to nuetral. this has no sales-oriented language or external links to commrcial website as WP:ADMASK says. please share the link to community policy or move page to live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.53.135 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:13, 2 December 2020 review of draft by Hmichelle1

[edit]


I do not know how to submit my draft for review. Hmichelle1 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmichelle1: Did you try clicking the giant blue button that says "Submit the draft for review", and then the one at the bottom of the next page that says Publish changes? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:42, 2 December 2020 review of draft by 217.155.35.61

[edit]


I am the subject of this entry. I find it surprising that I am deemed not worthy of an article but, given that's the concensus, I would like this entry to be deleted from Wikipedia. It is not fair to make money from having my name/draft article on the site. PLEASE DELETE. I am a living person who does not wish a draft version of some article about myself to be published online.

217.155.35.61 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not "make money" based on the existence of any one article or draft. But as the creator, you can request its deletion, which I will carry out. Please note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, and that there are notability criteria to merit an article(as reviewers told you). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want a draft article about you to be published, why on earth did you create one? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_December_2&oldid=994016519"