Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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.


January 25

[edit]

00:04:49, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Rlaird

[edit]


The reviewer stated "Entire sections are unsourced, on Wikipedia all stated facts should be backed up by a citation. External links should be removed from body of article." So, I have questions about both of these stipulations:

1) The IUCRR is and has always been a virtual organization, it's only "existence" is proved by the website that is operated by the org, and by call-outs made via email lists. All discussions between Board of Directors are via private email lists. The same is true for the members, with their own private email list. So, I'm a little bewildered by the problem of sourcing all of the statements in the article. Most of the content of the article comes directly from the IUCRR website, and for the good reason stated above. The organization has a "bible" that contains information, rules and procedures that everyone needs to follow to be a member in good standing, the RRSOM manual. That manual is available to members only (on a password protection section of the website). The other other citations/sources are articles in a large variety of magazines, newspapers, etc. which talk about members of the IUCRR doing body recoveries (and the occasional rescue). I did include a number of those to "prove" that I'm not making any of this up. So, I'm very concerned that this lack of sourcing will prevent the IUCRR article from being published/accepted. I'd appreciate anything you can offer to help me make this not happen.

2) I have no idea what "External links should be removed from the body of the article." means. I've seen a section called "External Links" on many other articles, and I thought I was using them appropriately.


Rlaird (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rlaird Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) the organization,.showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. If no independent sources give this organization significant coverage, then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:47, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Kalapala0

[edit]


Kalapala0 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:20:27, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Fidzdiaz-iniego₩== 01:20:27, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Fidzdiaz-iniego ==


Fidzdiaz-iniego (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fidzdiaz-iniego do you have question? The draft was declined so I suggest reading through all the material linked in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:34, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Kye Harris 20063

[edit]


Kye Harris 20063 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Kye Harris (CHECK$) and I would like to upload my wiki about my self because I make a strong impact into the uk music scene and I have a positive message to spread to other younger people, I have done many impressive things to help and I would love to have my page so I can reach out to my fans and have everything in one place. My manager said he would recommend I crate one so all the information is in one place, ive been making a impact on the global radio scene and I've gotten some good impressions.

Thanks, kye.

Kye Harris 20063 People do not have a "wiki" here, a wiki is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is one example; Wikipedia has articles about topics. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; please read the autobiography policy. Wanting to spread messages or communicate with your fans is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia, even for a good cause. If you ever meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources and choose to write about you on their own. Any article about you would not be yours to control; you could not lock it to the text you prefer or prevent others from editing it. Any information, good or bad, about you can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. Please read about an article about you is not necessarily a good thing. If you want to communicate with your fans, you should use social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:50, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Aartibhardwaj12

[edit]


Aartibhardwaj12 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aartibhardwaj12 you do not ask a question but the the article was deleted after a review by several editors and draft did not overcome the concerns noted in the deletion so is rejected, meaning it will not longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17:53, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Maplestrip

[edit]

I have foolishly agreed to write a Wikipedia article for the company I work for, but it has been denied due to sourcing issues. I have a hard time telling which sources are or aren't WP:RS in this subject matter, and my draft includes a variety of sources. Could I get a second opinion on which sources are good and how close this subject is to meeting GNG? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maplestrip if you want a second opinion, you can resubmit the draft but you need to give WP:NCORP a thorough read first. Many of the sources appear to be trade publications which are at best weak sources and without digging into them also likely fail WP:ORGCRIT. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:37, 25 January 2023 review of submission by Hooton Writer

[edit]

Because my page was deleted and I don't understand what went wrong because I had cited all information and included all relevant links. Pasting it again so please review. Hooton Writer (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{Removed Pasted article contents} Speak with the deleting admin on their talkpage, don't paste the content here, especially copyrighted material.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:29:01, 25 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Två Granit

[edit]


Hello.

Draft:Oskar Källner was not accepted and I need help to understand why. This is a writer who got a ten book deal with the biggest publisher of childrens literature in Sweden and where the translation rights were sold to other languages before it was even published. This is not the norm. The only information is that it needs sources which are "in-depth", "reliable", "secondary" and "independent". All the articles are about him. They are not "just passing mentions about the subject". The sources are a big regional newspaper, the Swedish public tv corporation and the Swedish public radio corpopration ("the Swedish BBC"). They are reliable, secondary and independent. What is missing?


Två Granit (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Två Granit The sources seem to be basic announcements about his work; not significant coverage of him. One source is an interview with him, which is not an independent source. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author or more broadly a notable person. Book deals and selling translation rights are routine activities, unless you have sources that go in depth discussing how these things are significant. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:04, 25 January 2023 review of draft by Dmg37

[edit]


I resubmitted the draft after initial rejection as the sources were judged not independent and/or from reputed sources. I have added a long list of sources, so the article is now extensively referenced with reference to major newspapers and academic journals as requested, so am puzzled as to why it has been rejected a second time. Any help would be appreciated!

Dmg37 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmg37 You are what we call ref bombing. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. You have documented the work of the company, but that is not what we are looking for. Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Merely documenting the work of the company is not significant coverage- we are looking for sources that go into detail about what is important, significant, or influentual about the company as the source sees it. Please read Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment). 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I am not very experienced with wikipedia editing so advice is appreciated. Is it possible for you to tell me which particularly sources have been deemed to be not reliable and significant and which are? What are the criteria for notability for poetry presses and work with a smaller audience? Dmg37 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dmg37 There is not a specific criteria for poetry presses, this would fall under the criteria for a notable organization at WP:ORG. It's not your sources themselves that are the issue, but their content- it isn't enough to just document the work of the press. We need independent reliable sources that on their own(not prompted by the press or based on materials from them like press releases) write about the press and what is significant about it. Has the press create a new publishing innovation that other presses emulated? Does it influence how authors write? Something beyond "they are a press and here's what they've published". What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sources which I hope answer these criteria. These are listed with citations on the page, but I include the full quotations here.
As examples of the press putting back into print/circulation, preserving and documenting historical documents of significance to the history of New Narrative writing, African American poetry, etc.
--"The 'open letter' found publication in full some twenty years later, in a British magazine with a strong interest in New Narrative, Materials no.4: Economic Ophelia (2014), edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Writers who love too much : new narrative writing 1977-1997. Dodie Bellamy, Kevin Killian. New York. 2017. ISBN 978-1-937658-65-6. OCLC 992469341., p.501]
--'"We can't end 2020 without a note about a November publication by the under-recognized New Narrative writer Gabrielle Daniels, whose work "spans essays, fiction, poetry and novels," as publisher David Grundy notes, and appeared in the groundbreaking anthology, This Bridge Called My Back." ['Materials Brings Out Long-Awaited First Collection From New Narrative Writer Gabrielle Daniels', The Poetry Foundation,https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet-books/2020/12/materials-brings-out-long-awaited-first-collection-from-new-narrative-writer-gabrielle-daniels]
[Note the significance of publications--This Bridge Called My Back is a major anthology and this was the first collection o Daniels' work.]
--In addition, the press is listed at the National Poetry Library, Southbank Centre, London, and titles are held there and in the British Library, University of Buffalo Special Collections, University College London, etc: https://www.nationalpoetrylibrary.org.uk/write-publish/publishers/materials-materialien [E.g. of catalogue records for UCL and Buffalo: https://worldcat.org/title/1166797897, https://worldcat.org/title/1240805921?oclcNum=1240805921, and https://worldcat.org/title/1237709319]
--The press is include as an important presence in a survey of contemporary UK poetry in Danny Hayward's book Wound Building, both as magazine publisher and publisher of books and chapbooks. "The various groups of authors now published by Commune Editions in the US, or by Materials, Shit Valley, Barque Press, 87 Press, and Veer in the UK, or by a multitude of radical poetry journals such as Tripwire, Materials (again), Splinter, Lana Turner Journal, Armed Cell, or Datableed." [ Hayward, Danny (2021-09-29). Wound Building: Dispatches from the Latest Disasters in UK Poetry. Punctum Books. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-1-68571-000-2.]
--An in-depth (German-language) article (Jul 20, 2016 ) by journalist Philip Boverman for Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, focuses on the press's 'Brexit // Borders Kill' magazine as an example of " how political poetry has become again". "In Germany in particular, mockery of political poetry is still firmly in the saddle. This overlooks the fact that contemporary poetry has unnoticed, via the postmodern back door, so to speak, become political again [...] [the] publication [ ...] is symptomatic of the free English poetry scene, which tends to revolve around the universities, because that's where it still receives some form of encouragement.The magazine compiles reactions to an email circulating at British universities. For these poets, being far away from the well-established cultural industry offers the decisive advantage of being able to react to political developments without advance notice, in a quasi-journalistic manner. but quickly. At readings and poetry festivals they find their audience for a few pounds."https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/brexit-anthologie-ohnmaechtig-1.3086616]
The volume Sundial Compleat, edited by poet, publisher and critic Richard Owens (who has his own Wikipedia page), also reprints the entirety of the issue mentioned by Killian and Bellamy in the above quotation:
--"Additional instances of radical poetic thought contained herein but not first published by Punch Press include facsimile reproductions of Justin Katko’s Basic Middle Finger (Shit Valley 2015) and Economic Ophelia, a themed 2014 issue of the Cambridge-based journal Materials devoted to feminisms and edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Acknowledgments page] Owens goes on to include Materials/Materialien in an "ecumenical bibliography" of US/UK small presses. (pp.414-16) Here is a long quotation from his preface which suggests the importance that presses such as these be documented in sources such as Wikipedia, paying attention to modes of cultural production that may be relatively ephemeral compared to large, funded publishing houses, but perform an important (sub)cultural function nonethelss, making it all the more important that their activity be documented when it is not afforded a place in many standard accounts. "Against the threat of its expiration and potential irrelevance, this bibliography struggles to offer a moderately representative screen capture of what can convincingly be considered a cultural renaissance in politically radical Anglophone poetries, particularly radical lyric poetries [...] as the history of repressive backlashes against leftist political tendencies across the twentieth-century so aptly demonstrates, the term “radical” has long been identified with anti-capitalist and anti-statist cultural practices. And it is precisely these foundationally distinct anti- capitalist cultural tendencies that this bibliography aims to cast in relief [...] More than this, the term “radical” might function as a descriptor of the variegated flood of poetries produced from 911 forward, and even more specifically from the onset of the global economic crisis inaugurated by the US sub-prime mortgage scandal of 2007, and thence onward through global economic collapse of 2008, the Arab Spring of 2011, the UK riots [p. 361] following the police murder of Mark Duggan in 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011-12, the 2014 scandals surrounding sexual violence in US literary communities, and the absolutely decisive emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement following from the routine and seemingly state-sponsored murder of innocent, unarmed African Americans. These developments in their totality have compelled poetic critiques and commentaries which supersede, on the terrain of the aesthetic, the difficulties introduced by partisan and activist poetries in the past [...] The center of such an architecture cannot but fail to hold, and in the most strikingly salient instances—i.e., the work of, say, Amiri Baraka, Gwendolyn Brooks, Charles Olson, J.H. Prynne, and Denise Riley, through to contemporary poets such as Keston Sutherland, Frances Kruk, Sean Bonney, Lisa Robertson, Rob Halpern and innumerable others—what we see is an organic synthesis of the aesthetic and the political predicated on a rigorous and intellectually responsible familiarity with the historicity of Western aesthetic practices across centuries and, in most cases, millennia. As such, these Anglophone poetries mark a decisive turn away from arguments and appraisals grounded in an imagined divide [p. 363] between the political and the aesthetic. But if this is the case, then many if not most of the poets acknowledged in the bibliography below also refuse to approach the poem as a crass political vehicle for punditry, sloganeering and casual opinion. Rather, the poetries here registered offer themselves as active sites of inquiry and investigation unlike any other—as sites that aspire to engage, trouble and further develop the deeper music of our collective being. Many of the poets included below are unashamedly Marxist, communist, socialist, and anarchist, but despite this their work in most instances does not surrender its formal rigor or aesthetic complexity. Actually the case is exactly the inverse; the political commitments of many of the poets here included render their work even more aesthetically difficult and complex than poetries which typically refuse such commitments. In other words, historical developments following from the turn of the last century appear to have triggered a significant reversal of sorts in which those lyric and non-lyric poetries that are most politically committed are also the poetries which are perhaps the most aesthetically innovative and formally rigorous. The organizing unit—or the unit of measure—for this bibliography is the small press; not the commercial press, fine press, vanity press, large independent press or university press but the small press. In almost every case each press is run by one or more poets, most of whom have been published by other presses included here—and the use of the press as an organizing unit convincingly underscores the extent to which the literary communities represented by these presses cross-pollinate one another, each bleeding into each and richly cross-fertilizing many of the others. Situated nearly beyond the cusp of the transition from a predominantly print culture to an almost exclusively digital culture, this bibliography aims to call attention to those presses which have or are most likely to fall into obscurity."
--Perhaps the listed events and appearances at reputed institutions such as Cambridge University, involving major writers who have their own wikipedia pages, also serves as an indication of notability? Dmg37 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large swath of the previous comment is likely copyrighted material, since it's a long, quoted excerpt from a published work -- does that matter here? David10244 (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a comment rather than a published page. I can cut down and repost if better however. Dmg37 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is likely to read the giant wall of text above, I suggest you cut it down to a short paragraph. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sources which I hope answer these criteria. These are listed with citations on the page, but I include the full quotations here.
As examples of the press putting back into print/circulation, preserving and documenting historical documents of significance to the history of New Narrative writing, African American poetry, etc.
--"The 'open letter' found publication in full some twenty years later, in a British magazine with a strong interest in New Narrative, Materials no.4: Economic Ophelia (2014), edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Writers who love too much : new narrative writing 1977-1997. Dodie Bellamy, Kevin Killian. New York. 2017. ISBN 978-1-937658-65-6. OCLC 992469341., p.501]
--'"We can't end 2020 without a note about a November publication by the under-recognized New Narrative writer Gabrielle Daniels, whose work "spans essays, fiction, poetry and novels," as publisher David Grundy notes, and appeared in the groundbreaking anthology, This Bridge Called My Back." ['Materials Brings Out Long-Awaited First Collection From New Narrative Writer Gabrielle Daniels', The Poetry Foundation,https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet-books/2020/12/materials-brings-out-long-awaited-first-collection-from-new-narrative-writer-gabrielle-daniels]
[Note the significance of publications--This Bridge Called My Back is a major anthology and this was the first collection o Daniels' work.]
--In addition, the press is listed at the National Poetry Library, Southbank Centre, London, and titles are held there and in the British Library, University of Buffalo Special Collections, University College London, etc: https://www.nationalpoetrylibrary.org.uk/write-publish/publishers/materials-materialien [E.g. of catalogue records for UCL and Buffalo: https://worldcat.org/title/1166797897, https://worldcat.org/title/1240805921?oclcNum=1240805921, and https://worldcat.org/title/1237709319]
--The press is include as an important presence in a survey of contemporary UK poetry in Danny Hayward's book Wound Building, both as magazine publisher and publisher of books and chapbooks. "The various groups of authors now published by Commune Editions in the US, or by Materials, Shit Valley, Barque Press, 87 Press, and Veer in the UK, or by a multitude of radical poetry journals such as Tripwire, Materials (again), Splinter, Lana Turner Journal, Armed Cell, or Datableed." [ Hayward, Danny (2021-09-29). Wound Building: Dispatches from the Latest Disasters in UK Poetry. Punctum Books. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-1-68571-000-2.]
--An in-depth (German-language) article (Jul 20, 2016 ) by journalist Philip Boverman for Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, focuses on the press's 'Brexit // Borders Kill' magazine as an example of " how political poetry has become again". "In Germany in particular, mockery of political poetry is still firmly in the saddle. This overlooks the fact that contemporary poetry has unnoticed, via the postmodern back door, so to speak, become political again [...] [the] publication [ ...] is symptomatic of the free English poetry scene, which tends to revolve around the universities, because that's where it still receives some form of encouragement.The magazine compiles reactions to an email circulating at British universities. For these poets, being far away from the well-established cultural industry offers the decisive advantage of being able to react to political developments without advance notice, in a quasi-journalistic manner. but quickly. At readings and poetry festivals they find their audience for a few pounds."https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/brexit-anthologie-ohnmaechtig-1.3086616]
The volume Sundial Compleat, edited by poet, publisher and critic Richard Owens (who has his own Wikipedia page), also reprints the entirety of the issue mentioned by Killian and Bellamy in the above quotation:
--"Additional instances of radical poetic thought contained herein but not first published by Punch Press include facsimile reproductions of Justin Katko’s Basic Middle Finger (Shit Valley 2015) and Economic Ophelia, a themed 2014 issue of the Cambridge-based journal Materials devoted to feminisms and edited by David Grundy and Lisa Jeschke." [Acknowledgments page] Owens goes on to include Materials/Materialien in an "ecumenical bibliography" of US/UK small presses. (pp.414-16)
Dmg37 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these establish the notability of the press itself. The work they publish may be notable, but for the press itself to merit an article there must be coverage about what is important or influential about the press itself. Mere listings are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:54:47, 25 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.24.168.231

[edit]


Reviewer says, "Sources used are not reliable and/or not in-depth.".

The sources include;

  • Perry, C. (2016). The Kaleidoscope British Christmas Television Guide 1937-2013. (n.p.): Kaleidoscope Publishing.
  • Billboard, 7 Apr 1956. Vol. 68, No. 14, ISSN 0006-2510. Published by Nielsen Business Media, Inc.
  • Tatarsky, D. (2016). The Splendid Book of the Bicycle. United Kingdom: Portico.

86.24.168.231 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Television Guide is just that – a programme guide. Not in-depth. The Billboard source is her name in an advert. Not in-depth. The Splendid Book of the Bicycle was added to the draft after the reviewer comment above. The two subsequent declines were not specifically about the sourcing; the draft is not a viable one, it can not become an article until some actual content is added to it. It has only one single sentence with almost no information, but cited to 8 separate sources. Resubmitting immediately after a decline without any attempt to edit the draft is not constructive. --bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:46, 25 January 2023 review of draft by JuneKatunge

[edit]


Hello, I need to know why my request is been declined I have corrected my issues based on the comments given earlier for example: 1. This reads like a resume and needs to be completely rewritten by AngusW🐶🐶F 2. I don't see his name as Principal Secretary State Department for Industry, Principal Secretary State Department for Trade, Cabinet Secretary, or Industrialization Secretary JuneKatunge (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JuneKatunge Basically you have posted his resume. That's not what we are looking for. Any article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you are associated with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_25&oldid=1136588589"