Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 December 23

= December 23 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bardia Rahim Osrius (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the page Bardia Rahim I created meets Wikipedia notability golden rule and uses reputable sources from well known newspapers and popular national magazines in the industry from which the subject is known. I noticed the first time it was declined on DEC. 22nd 2013 by User:Balablitz which on his talk page I tried to reach him with no response, I also noticed he has a history of edit mistakes on his talk page. Additionally I asked a more experienced editor User:SarahStierch on her talk page to see what would be the best way to open a discussion? She said to speak to him on his talk page,I did with no luck getting a response. Lastly, while I was editing the page in my sandbox when I hit preview I received a message from User:APerson that it was declined, which it should have been open for discussion and editing as I requested in my notes and with User:SarahStierch. The living person is a well known Mixed Martial Arts fighter and founder of one of the biggest action sports companies in the world. It would be a disservice to all who search him to not include him in an encyclopedia. I believe the page is written a neutral tone and is unbiased and should be up for review and any possible edits to make better, but not declined unless the consensus feels it was poorly written. I included link to page below, please review in hopes to have page accepted. I also feel a little threatened by User:APerson as on his talk page it says, "I dislike vandalism and the attempted submission of articles that are really bad (e.g. one-sentence articles, unsourced conspiracy theories, etc.) Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put." This makes me feel like he's stating that the pages he edits are vandalism? I assure you mine is not, nor should I or any other contributor feel threatened or bullied and I believe it violates the sites terms of use. I feel I am a very good new contributor and I would like to see myself grow exponentially as a Wikipedia editor. Now I have opened page up for review where I would love for a 3rd party to review the page for possible acceptance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bardia_Rahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius (talk • contribs) 08:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * , regarding the observations made by upon editors who declines his/her submissions or who want to improve the quality of articles. I don't keep a tab on specific articles on my watchlist. A lot more, working on varied subjects. FYI, most of my edit mistakes are due to my usage of visual editor, while wikifying, which were resolved ASAP, as and when brought to notice. Not only  or, every editor or rollbacker or even a sysop has their own way of improving wikipedia, subject to guidelines framed. No editor need to fear, if guidelines are followed judiciously. Necessary explanation and suggestions to improve Barda Rahim, were provided at my talk page and at the article's page. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is evident that I did not put that on my user page as a result of anything related to this submission and that it was not intended to threaten you&mdash;especially since it's been up for almost a year now and I was clearly referring to submissions that are much lower in quality than yours. A submission that is declined is still open for discussion and editing, as I mentioned on my talkpage. You also seem to have accused me of "making threats"; please elaborate on what sort of threats I have made. APerson (talk!) 21:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit: This seems to have been resolved, at least pertaining to my involvement, so Merry Christmas to all. APerson (talk!) 02:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Loughman
Hi,

I've been attempting to create the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Loughman for a while now, and each time it's submission is unfortunately declined due to referencing. So, each time I have attempted to edit the article and each time it is still declined due to insufficient or incorrect referencing. I don't believe there is insufficient referencing, as I have used many external and bona fide references, but I must just be referencing them incorrectly. I was just wondering if you would be able to help, it would be greatly appreciated!

King Regards,

Jamie McDonald

1405jay1405 (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would like to deliver a large wet fish to the editors who declined your submission without satisfactorily explaining why. Basically, a reference needs to be all three of reliable, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage. For "reliable", we mean "likely to tell the truth in an impartial manner" and that tends to mean books, newspapers or magazines - anything that has an editorial staff whose job is on the line to get things right. For "independent", you need coverage about Loughman, not written by him, which means his personal website, though it might be realiable, isn't independent. Finally, each source must talk substantially about the subject, and do so in some depth. This book mentions Loughman in the credits, and it's definitely reliable and independent, but he is merely mentioned in passing in a list of acknowledgements at the back.
 * Now, the good news is, that while you might have difficulty creating an article for Mark Loughman, you should have no problems creating one for his company, BAE. I have found two product reviews for BAE mics in Sound on Sound here and here - those are reliable (SoS is a commercially published magazine), independent (the reviewers aren't affiliated with BAE) and significant (the two lengthy articles are dedicated to a BAE product). So you might have more success creating an article about the company instead. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Dwinner53/sandbox
Angels in the Bible and Qura'an: Agreements

I am a big fan and supporter of Wikipedia and just submitted my first contribution. I was dismayed to received the response that my contribution is "an essay" and not "neutral". This response is mystifying as in fact the article is 100% neutral and completely balanced. Almost every line is referenced to the original source (Bible and Qura'an).

SO please kindly explain exactly what the problem is and I will surely correct it.

Dwinner53 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Dana


 * The fundamental problem is that this isn't really a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, as most of the content already exists in other articles, such as Christian angelic hierarchy and Islamic view of angels. Religious texts are problematic when used as sources, and I'm sure an atheist would argue very strongly against citing the Bible or the Koran as being "100% neutral". There's also the problem that you can pick up quotations from the Bible and use them to say just about anything, such as the infamous example of combining Matthew 27:5 and Luke 10:37, giving you "Judas went away and hanged himself. Go and do likewise." Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)