Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 July 18

= July 18 =

02:11:20, 18 July 2014 request for review by AmericanArt52
Hello~ On Wednesday, July 16 at approximately 2 am, I submitted a request for an article to be created, and a draft of an article I wrote on the subject of the composer and author Albert Glinsky. I have been searching in the Submissions List but cannot find any record of the article (AFC) submission. I am suspicious that it was not submitted because in the top right corner of my sandbox, where I continue to work on the article, it has a green banner saying, "Submit Your Draft for Review."

Can you please tell me if it was indeed successfully submitted? Also, can I continue to work on the article in my sandbox until such time as it is reviewed-- and if so, will your reviewers be looking at the updated version in my sandbox, or the original version I submitted on July 16?

AmericanArt52 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello AmericanArt52. Your draft has been accepted. It was moved into article space early this morning (UK time) . You'll find it at Albert Glinsky. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

07:22:50, 18 July 2014 review of submission by 220.239.246.214
I was wondering two things- one, obviously, why the article was declined and secondly, how and where can I retrieve the article I submitted so that I don't need to go through the process again?

It's tricky as I didn't know that the article had been declined or how to find out?

Thanks lots

220.239.246.214 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't find out because you aren't logged-in to your account. If you log-in, you'll see bright yellow "you have messages" alert at the top of your screen, and your message page will be telling you the current draft was declined.
 * So far as where, your draft is still in the same place: Draft:Jacqueline Harvey. The message on your Talk page (which you can see when you log-in) also has the link in case you forget.
 * So far as why: the reason is given in the large pink box at the top of your draft. Please read that and click any of the blue words to see the specific guidelines if you need more detail. Let us know if you've taken a look at those guidelines and aren't seeing how to address the issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

09:07:32, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Amit Sarin
Hi i have created a page (above is the link mentioned) please let me know why my request to create the page has not been accepted?

Waiting for a quick reply

Amit Sarin (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please actually look at the comment left by the reviewer. Fiddle   Faddle  13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

11:50:10, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Monica Mbaraga
Hello

I submitted an article today for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pielparade_(South_African_military_slang)

The article explains a slang term for several sexual practices which were - and are - prevalent in the South African military. Due to practices which the slang term describes being highly taboo, and because many of the activities of the South African army in the late apartheid era are very controversial, the slang term is rarely openly discussed in public and it is hardly written about. Thus it is almost impossible to find reliable sources, though I have pasted working documents of my article on various websites asking for more information. I would like to know if Wikipedia has leeway for publishing articles on subjects like this one which is certainly common knowledge in South Africa but the international community is not aware of it because it is so rarely discussed or written about? It would be useful for researchers or readers to be able to access information on this subject in Wikipedia, since they will struggle to do so elsewhere. Could you help me by letting me know in which section of Wikipedia such articles are published and how I should proceed? It seems a pity to me if articles are discarded due to a lack of reliable sources even though the information it contains is tacit to a large population.

Thank you

Monica Mbaraga (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing about Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia. Your article is more in place in a dictionary of slang. We cannot accept unsourced or anecdotal material. WP:TRUTH is relevant to your question. It is not a shame that it is discarded. It is important that it be discarded since there is no verifiability. WP:42 applies to everything here. Fiddle   Faddle  13:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , for my side, I'd note it's an interesting topic, but encyclopedia's don't do WP:Original research. That is, we only cover topics once they've already been documented. If your topic is still in the research, interview gathering, investigation phase, while it may be an interesting topic it's still at too early of a phase to get encyclopedia coverage. "Things everyone knows" can't be used in an encyclopedia because readers cannot WP:Verify them, but if for example you and some other researchers publish some academic papers on this, or it gets a chapter in a book about S.African military culture, then we could have a Wikipedia article with clear citations to the book that documents them. I'll disagree slightly with FiddleFaddle in that I don't think it's the "slang" aspect that's an issue, so much as just the lack of documentation at the moment.


 * Being that your intent is to give the world a clearer understanding of these traditional military practices, among the better ways you could help would be to work with either a journalist or an academic in bringing this to their attention, providing your own knowledge in interviews, and helping them find other servicepeople that could help record their recollections of these customs. Assuredly somewhere there must be academics writing on human sexuality in culture who would be interested, or a journalist covering such topics that would find the topic insightful into understanding masculinity in South Africa.


 * An encyclopedia can only "serve pieces of a cake" that's already baked and done. What you have right now is bowls of flour and sugar, so you're in too early of a stage, but must find some cooks to collaborate with. Please don't be discouraged, it's an interesting topic, just the research needs to move forward and be formally documented before it goes into an encyclopedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that it is "certainly common knowledge in South Africa", being South African and having firsthand knowledge of the conscription era. Helen  Online  16:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Helen. I'm also South African and have many friends and acquaintances who went through conscription and not a single one of them has ever mentioned anything even remotely like the content of the draft. I may be off-base here but it looks to me like the type of urban legend/propaganda/disinformation nonsense fabricated by people with a politically motivated anti-conscription agenda (similar to the well known lie about Special Forces recruits being forced to strangle a puppy they have raised). All the Google hits for the term "pielparade" are less than two days old and seem to originate from this draft article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

14:25:20, 18 July 2014 review of submission by 66.194.102.6
Hi there, I do not understand why ShopVisible's article is being rejected for "sounding to much like an advertisement." We've edited, made changes and resubmitted this article multiple times - Back in December, when this article was rejected for sounding like an advertisement, we made the necessary changes and no reviewer since has mentioned that this sounds like an advertisement. Please point out specific language as to where this article sounds like an advertisement, but other industry companies and competitors have very similar voice and language in their currently published (accepted) Wikipedia articles. For example, Magento's article goes into detail about products offered and value to its customers. Our article does not mention any sales language that goes beyond the voice used in Magento (and other competitors') Wikipedia pages, yet our submission keeps getting denied. If this submission sounds too much like an advertisement, then I'd be glad to point out several other currently published Wikipedia articles that possess the language you are denying this submission over. Please advise, we've continuously been working with multiple editors to get this article published on Wikipedia and it seems as though there is no consistency when it comes to "advertising" language. 66.194.102.6 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Jennifer Blackburn 66.194.102.6 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Jennifer Blackburn 66.194.102.6 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)66.194.102.6 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Jennifer Blackburn

66.194.102.6 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who's "we"? I'm hearing a lot of talk about "our article" which doesn't inspire me with trust.
 * Be advised that "other stuff exists" isn't a valid rationale. I understand your frustration but Wikipedia has lots of articles that have problems. Your submission does read promotionally. Take, for instance, the sentence "ShopVisible also enables your back office management including orders, inventory, channel, content management and more." I don't know about others, but I don't have "back office management" and Wikipedia isn't trying to communicate this idea to people looking for business solutions. Furthermore, this sentence is copied word-for-word from http://www.shopvisible.com/author/shopvisible-marketing.aspx among other internal company websites! Sentences like "Fortunately, these unique challenges and necessities can be supported by a new breed of technologies that have the potential to simultaneously meet the complex requirements of a B2B transaction environment while delivering the rich customer experience buyers expect when buying online in their personal lives." are laughable. There's no neutral point of view; this sentence is meant to advertise.
 * You have no independent and reliable sources. Almost all of them are PR websites and corporate partners. You haven't established corporate notability and this dearth of sources indicates a lack of general notability.
 * Wikipedia is not going to be part of your business's "omni-channel experience" so cease and desist. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

18:21:16, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Mbufty
Mbufty (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Trying to put the history of Moringa Royale and The Moringa Health Group ,LLC on here and got a response that it did not meet guidelines. Can you please explain to me what I can do to make it stick. Thank you, Michael Owner Moringa Royale The Moringa Health Group, LLC


 * One thing you might do is to look at it. Does it even look like a Wikipedia article? What would you say to an employee who presented you with a report that simply looked like it does? And, after that, does it have any references? Have you noticed that it is 100% promotional? Please start by finding independent references and write the article from there. Fiddle   Faddle  21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

21:42:06, 18 July 2014 review of draft by Bliss Ajootian
Bliss Ajootian (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote an article on Roberta Kaplan. I thought I submitted it for review nearly two weeks ago; at the time the warning was that it would take a week to review. I am fine with it just taking a long time to wait its turn for review. I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't a problem on my end--did I do the right thing in submitting it? Has it been rejected & I just didn't figure that out yet? Thanks for tips. This was my first article for Wikipedia and I want to be sure I did it right, or right enough.


 * The article was submitted several times. This is not of itself an issue. It is most assuredly awaiting review and will be reviewed when a volunteer who believes it is within their skill picks it up and reviews it. Fiddle   Faddle  21:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems that was me. for reasons given on the draft itself.  Fiddle   Faddle  21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Timtrent that there's way too much content about the Supreme Court case on the Defense of Marriage Act. Because Kaplan isn't all that notable, you're approaching our rule against biographies about people known for one event. I think Kaplan might be notable but the draft needs to be trimmed back and re-focused. You also have some concerning close paraphrasing of http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Roberta_Kaplan and http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/the-widening-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling.html. Please rewrite. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)