Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 2 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 4 >
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.


November 3

[edit]

01:04:43, 3 November 2021 review of submission by CardistryExpert

[edit]

I am an avid fan of specialty card tricks and when I found that wikipedia had articles about it I was surprised to find that they didn't have a profile for one of my very favorite magicians. How does Lee Asher, Chris Kenner, Daniel and David Buck - Dan and Dave who all worked with him have pages, yet he does not?

He is mentioned in several articles as the creator of the genre:

[[1]] (Multiple mentions) [[2]] [[3]]

The authority on card flourishes, Jerry Cestkowski said in his book, Tudor had "very, very good flourish cuts and some unbelievable false flourish cuts." (http://docshare.tips/the-encyclopedia-of-playing-card-flourishes_587545e9b6d87f86848b49f5.html )

This is the single most prolific producer of card flourishing publications, how does that still not make him notable?

I was asked for more independent sources to confirm his notability, the article lists that he is cited as notable by:

1. Vanity Fair 2. Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes 3. Urban Dictionary 4. Genii Magazine 5. Magic Magazine 6. DecemberBoys.com.ua 7. Bicycle Playing Card website 8. "Flash Cards with Jerry Cestkowski" podcast

There are 27 total references. I was told I needed seven, and now I have plenty more, how many do I need to satisfy you? Chris Kenner has much fewer and has his own article.

I am in contact with the cited noble contributors such as David Copperfield, Chris Kenner, and Dave and Dan, but they all don't understand why the draft would be rejected.

Do you have any tips to help me accomplish this? CardistryExpert (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CardistryExpert Please read other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also problematic. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. I would note that Chris Kenner (magician) has been proposed for deletion.
A reviewer provided a good breakdown of why the sources you offered were inappropriate. The opinions of others in the field help, but are not significant coverage of the subject. You also seem to have a conflict of interest as you say you are in contact with the people involved. Fewer high quality sources are better than a large number of low quality sources. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:03:43, 3 November 2021 review of submission by 27.6.149.34

[edit]


27.6.149.34 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:33:38, 3 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Anwar Shakir Wazir

[edit]


Dear,Sir/Madam. As a journalist for last 20 years and have given my blood to Journalism /free speech, I would like to post my biography on Wikipedia. this is my 1st chance to publish and post my Bio , but its not acceptable to Wikipedia,so could you please help me in this regards --> -->Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Shakir Wazir First, please read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write autobiographical articles, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable journalist. To be successful in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say about you- that is usually difficult for people to do.
You may also wish to review how to write references. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:37:27, 3 November 2021 review of submission by Yusuf khan books

[edit]


Respected sir, my name is Yusuf Khan and I'm a self-publishing author from India and I have authored more than 3 books and I fear that people may try to copy my content and even try to portrait as me online. I request you to plz approve my page. Thank you.

Yusuf khan books (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf khan books Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you would need to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. As it seems that you don't have such coverage and do not meet that definition, your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Self-published authors rarely merit articles, because typically independent reliable sources do not write about such works. Unless it occurs on Wikipedia itself, we cannot help you with others impersonating you and copying your work across the internet. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:51, 3 November 2021 review of draft by Gennidebič69

[edit]


Gennidebič69 (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know what exactly is to be changed in the draft? As the major (and most reliable) reference is the web page of the institution itself (which is of course mentioned), I wonder what else to offer as a reference. Thank you!

Gennidebič69 Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject says about itself. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. The organization itself can only be used as a source for certain information, and cannot be used to establish notability, see WP:PRIMARY. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:04, 3 November 2021 review of submission by GMC2020

[edit]


The review notes say, "This draft makes excessive use of primary sources." I edited to delete the author's own popular press writings, but the draft as rejected also includes examples of many reliable secondary sources that conducted interviews with the subject. I added a couple more of these but would appreciate advice on anything else I can do to align this with guidelines, as it does seem clear that the subject is a noteworthy international expert in her area (per #7 here).

GMC2020 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are also primary sources, as they're the subject being given a platform to talk about themselves. Interviews are worthless regardless of whether they were conducted by a New York Times journalist or Borat. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--GMC2020 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jéské, but this response suggests unfamiliarity with the draft on which I am requesting support and with the concept of expert interviews as per the guidelines for notability. The interviews do not feature the subject talking about herself: Every interview is the subject talking about her area of expertise. I would appreciate additional advice from a volunteer who is perhaps better informed about the guidelines for notability in academics, as detailed (in #7 here)
GMC2020 This person's views on their area of expertise would be relevant to an article on that area, but not to an article about her. An article about her should only discuss her personally. I removed your duplicate posting; further comments should be made here. It won't be archived as long as it gets further discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot. So how does one establish that an academic is a notable expert in their field, if not by numerous substantive interviews with her about her work and her expertise? The guidelines for academics state that a person is notable "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." These interviews and the articles the subject has published in major newspapers (which I deleted based on the initial feedback) document this. As #7 here states:
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. [...] Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
The subject has been cited frequently in conventional media, not at the local level, but nationally and internationally: New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC, NPR, etc. I think there's a disconnect or misunderstanding at play and want to do what I can to help ensure the entry is reviewed under the correct set guidelines (i.e. for academics' standards of notability). Thank you.
--GMC2020 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received any further comments on my questions here, and I'm wondering if there's a way to attach this conversation to the draft entry for the consideration of whomever might eventually review my revised draft? Thanks for any input/suggestions.

--GMC2020 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to this discussion on the draft talk page, but it's not necessary. Even if the person meets the notability criteria, there must still be significant coverage of the person personally in order for that person to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean further? I ask because this is not what the guidelines on academics, specifically, say. In addition to #7 linked above, the second bullet point here reads: "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMC2020 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a person cannot solely be composed of their views on their chosen field or area of expertise. It must have something to cite about the person themselves. Otherwise it is just an article about the field, not the person. The biographical information doesn't have to be the majority of the article, but there must be something. It would be as if the Henry Ford article talked more about the Model T and not him, or Elon Musk talked about SpaceX and not him. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_November_3&oldid=1054451337"