Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 July 1

= July 1 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dynamic Emotion-Focused Therapy
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DynamicEmotion-FocusedTherapy How do I get someone to look at my article and let me know if it is on the right track? I am still working on it, but would love input from someone who knows more than me! Thanks Swarshow (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Bridget Quebodeaux


 * As I said above, the draft reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. At times it veers off-topic, for example when discussing Warshow's credentials. It seems rather thick on the fluff compared to the substance. For example, it says: "All emotions reside in our bodies as well as our hearts." I am no psychologist, but the last time I checked, all that resided in my heart was some blood. I'm sure psychologists have better models for emotions than "it's in our hearts".
 * I'm also a little skeptical about the references. The one I could easily check online didn't mention DEFT at all, and I suspect they all fall in one of two groups: Those by Warshow, and those who do not mention DEFT (the references from 1979 and 1996 probably predate it). If DEFT is indeed proposed by a single researcher and no others have picked it up, it's probably not (yet) notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
 * Furthermore, if, as your username suggests, you are Susan Warren Warshow, you may have a conflict of interest when writing about your own research; see WP:SELFCITE. Huon (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

wanting to improve article
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/dynamicemotionfocusedtherapy Thanks for getting back to me (below) I'm not Swarshow I just wanted to have a user name that other DEFT therapists could remember because I thought we'd need to use it to log in and edit. I'm Bridget Quebodeaux. Should I/can I change the user name if that is going to throw reviewers? DEFT is a short term dynamic psychotherapy. There are many and the same research validates us all. Is there a way to state that so that research supporting STDP would be seen as supporting DEFT? (just to be clear that STDP is distinct from ISTDP which has it's own Wiki article. STDP is the umbrella under which ISTDP and DEFT and many other accelerated experiential dynamic therapies exist.  I did try to make it unessay-like, I made more changes based on what you suggested and will continue . My question comes down to---can I use research that validates STDP, as well as research that supports compassion and hope as essential to the change process  to validate this the DEFT approach (an STDP that focuses on compassion and hope) combined of course with journal articles that demonstrate the effectiveness of this model/ Warshow's work? Those journal articles are published by an independent source/professional journal and detail the effectiveness of the model. Might that not be enough? Thanks again!! Swarshow (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Bridget Quebodeaux

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DynamicEmotion-FocusedTherapy How do I get someone to look at my article and let me know if it is on the right track? I am still working on it, but would love input from someone who knows more than me! Thanks Swarshow (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Bridget Quebodeaux

As I said above, the draft reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. At times it veers off-topic, for example when discussing Warshow's credentials. It seems rather thick on the fluff compared to the substance. For example, it says: "All emotions reside in our bodies as well as our hearts." I am no psychologist, but the last time I checked, all that resided in my heart was some blood. I'm sure psychologists have better models for emotions than "it's in our hearts". I'm also a little skeptical about the references. The one I could easily check online didn't mention DEFT at all, and I suspect they all fall in one of two groups: Those by Warshow, and those who do not mention DEFT (the references from 1979 and 1996 probably predate it). If DEFT is indeed proposed by a single researcher and no others have picked it up, it's probably not (yet) notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, if, as your username suggests, you are Susan Warren Warshow, you may have a conflict of interest when writing about your own research; see WP:SELFCITE. Huon (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, usernames that impersonate other people are specifically disallowed by our username policy. You can request a username change; the procedure is explained at Changing username, and the link to the username change form is here. Users who have made very few edits are encouraged to simply register a new account and discard the old one instead of having the old one renamed. The username need not bear any relation to your real name (for example, Huon is a fictional character), but it should not imply things about you that are not true. I don't think reviewers will be affected in any way; at worst you might get some messages to your old account's talk page for a while; you might therefore want to watch that page.
 * You can certainly use research that validates DEFT; peer-reviewed scholarly articles are the best sources we can hope for. But the references should mention DEFT; otherwise they are rather off-topic, and making a point which is not explicitly made by the sources raises issues of original synthesis (which we should not engage in). Are there articles on DEFT that are not written by Warshow herself? Showing the breadth of research is better than focusing on a single scientist's work. Huon (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just helping out here - the correct link to the draft under discussion is WT:Articles for creation/Dynamic Emotion-Focused Therapy. Roger (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexz Johnson discography
ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.202.130 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Australia
MY Question is this, you did not accept my article but you accept others with false answers.I have spent my year searching and asking and I received my answesrs in a proper way. My teachers told me this,"What you seek in wikipedia is false information". I know that my language is of not a high standard please post it my dream always was to seek the truth. Moto (for every question there is an answer and for every action there is a reason) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.16.168 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I expect 92.251.16.168's question refers to the Australia draft. In that case, the answer is that we did not accept the draft because we already have an article on Australia, which offers vastly more information than your draft. If you feel something is missing from the Australia article, or if you happen upon an error in Wikipedia, please edit and improve the page, but as Sionk said, please provide a reliable source for your information so our readers can verify that your change is indeed an improvement. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Bill Jones
Hi, I am new to contributions for Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate why my article was declined and how I may rectify the article for resubmission. Regards Regi Mrrthomas (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please follow the instructions in the review message left on the article. You need to tell us where you obtained the information for the article, so we can (1) verify it is true (2) decide whether Jones is important enough for an encyclopedia article.
 * Actually, it looks like your article is copy-pasted from the Morning Star obituary, which means it is a copyright violation, which will either need to be re-written or removed. Sionk (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dario Margeli
Regaring the article in draft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dario_Margeli

Regarding the article creation above, a reviewer has rejected it as Neologisms saying that Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

I wonder if the reviewer has read the 19 references that appear in the article listed below? Non of these sites "are specifically intended to promote the neologism itself". These are sites independent from the "Neologism". Most of these sites are notable big sites in Spain and Italy: Vice, IfaNews (a finance magazine), Orrore 33 giri (a site about vintage music collection), Modernicolas (a site about nightlife in Malaga), rockit (Italy's 3rd highest ranking indie music site). They have nothing in common and they are all independent opinion. #1 also describes how one item from this "neologism" has become a social fenomenon quoting OTHER magazines..

The reviewer is wrong in his or her argument that "Links are to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself". No!! These sites each have their own purpose: financial news, local live directories, music review sites, collectors sites.

Pass the article to another reviewer!

1 ^ "'ifanews.it' Quote". Quotidiano della Consulenza Finanziaria.. 2 ^ "'independentpeople.com' Quote". Sisley.. 3 ^ "'United States Copyright Office' Quote". United States Copyright Office.. 4 ^ "'discogs.com' Quote". discogs.com.. 5 ^ "'musiczoom.it'". musiczoom.. 6 ^ "'itunes'". apple.. 7 ^ "'ithinkmagazine.it' Quote". i think magazine.. 8 ^ "'youtube.com'". Youtube.. 9 ^ "'adequacy.net' Quote". adequacy.net.. 10 ^ "'vice.com'". Vice.com.. 11 ^ "'nomfup.wordpress.com'". nomfup.wordpress.com.. 12 ^ "'orrore a 33giri'". orrore a 33 giri.. 13 ^ "'tumblr'". tumblr.. 14 ^ "'hype machine'". hype machine.. 15 ^ "'modernicolas.com'". Modernicolas Spain.. 16 ^ "'rockit.it' Quote". Rockit Italy.. 17 ^ "'mbmusic.it' Quote". mb music Italy.. 18 ^ "'amazon.com'". amazon. 19 ^ "'cdbaby.com'". cd baby.

Nayumadehrafti (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you are definitely correct to say a musician cannot be a "neologism". But since I reviewed the article on 4 June, the only vaguely reliable source added is the 'modernicolas' article. The remainder are blogs, or videos, or sales sites, which are unreliable and do not help prove Margeli's notability. To prove Margeli is important enough for an encyclopedia you normally need to show he has been talked about by reliable, independent sources (i.e. newspapers, magazines with journalistic standards, or books). I'll have a look at modernicolas.com and see if it meets those requirements. Sionk (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)