Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 August 28

= August 28 =

06:49:47, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Tjbones88
I'm kinda new with wikipedia. I'd love to write some articles about photography that is my passion. So, I noticed that one of my fav photographers out there was not yet in the english version of the wikipedia and I decided to start with him. But I'm doing something wrong. Could you please tell me how to improve my article to get it published? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you so much.

Tjbones88 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If photography were your passion, surely you would be out there taking photographs yourself, not taking an interest in other photographers?


 * Anyway, a quick example is that if, as you say, in May 2015, Joey Shaw "shocked the fashion world for his XS campaign", then reliable independent sources will have discussed this shockwave that rippled across the fashion world. Since they did so, you should cite that, as explained in Referencing for beginners, for each individual source that did so.


 * Do that with each statement or claim made in your Draft, and the notability issue should quickly go away. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

10:18:25, 28 August 2015 review of draft by Fashionworld 2015
Hi, I need your help. I create a draft on account1, and paste it to account "Fashionworld_2015", but article is deleted. Now i reedit the content, which is very similar to the previous one, is it alright? Areticle is "EDressit".

If there is still some matters, plz tell me some. Yours sincerely, Fashionworld_15

Fashionworld 2015 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The draft is to be deleted as a copyright violation. Wikipedia drafts must use 100% of your own words. Fiddle   Faddle  10:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

11:13:39, 28 August 2015 review of submission by CockerellDerm15
The article on Clay J. Cockerell was declined. I'd like to know why it was declined and how to rectify this so the article can be approved. Please advise. The login is CockerellDerm15. Thank you.

CockerellDerm15 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Blatantly promotional, no evidence of notability, no inline references, probably an autobiography. Is that enough reasons? Maproom (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

13:11:08, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Paracel63
Hi! It seems this article draft doesn't adequately show the subject's notability. I've come to be involved with it's development through my occupation as a mentor at Swedish Wikipedia, where the article Mattias Bärjed is developed in parallel. I've looked through the notability criteria, and I do find things there that match the article draft in its current state. The draft deals with a Guldbaggen winner (sourced, criterion #8 for musicians/ensembles?). Is it a problem that he hasn't made an international solo career (despite him being amply known from his years with The Soundtrack of Our Lives)? Much of his musical career has been with TSOOL, and then he has done lots of session/concert work with notable groups such as Refused, Broder Daniel, The Hellacopters and the like. His later years as a film score composer has been quite successful as well, and that is sourced in the article draft. But maybe there are notability problems that I cannot detect right now. Many thanks for enlightening me on this. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Paracel63 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

19:37:59, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Riitam
We need to get listed on wikipedia.

Riitam (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Riitam, sorry but Wikipedia does not care what you need, this is an encyclopedia, not social media or a marketting site. See the notability standard for bands and musicians to check if the band qualifies for an article (not a "listing"). If it does, you need to provide the sources that prove it; if not, there's nothing that can be done, sorry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

19:46:57, 28 August 2015 review of submission by AndrewCorser
I am requeting assistance after the following advice: "Sulfurboy has not edited Wikipedia since August 11. There's no way of knowing whether he is merely offline for awhile or gone for good. I'd suggest reposting the foregoing inquiry at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Go there, click the big "Click here to ask a new question." link and carefully follow the instructions at the top of the next page which pops up. Good luck and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)" It is to the following that TranporterMan was responding: "Sulfurboy rejected my draft article about Mary Spiller (see ref above) on the same basis of Mary Spiller not being notable enough as Worldbruce had rejected an earlier draft. I believe that I had included a number of independent references showing notability in the latest draft, and tried to rasie this matter with Sulfurboy through his talk page (see below). I have not had a reply, and my comments have now been archived on Sulfurboy's talk page - I assume this is equivalent to a rejection of my comments by Sulfurboy. I would appreciate some response on my comments. Thank you. Mary Spiller submission - 11 August 2015  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Spiller (From Sulfurboy talk archive 5) In response to your rejection of my article about Mary Spiller, siting insufficient "notability" SulfurBoy, you have repeated WorldBruce's assertion (why is it, by the way, that you aren't willing to talk to the world as who you are? I am Andrew Corser from Cornwall in the UK, and don't need to hide behind some nom d'ordinateur!) that "notability" is the issue regarding Mary Spiller. Could I draw both of your attentions to: 1. The Oxford Times says: “Miss Havergal's regime was tough but thorough and the gardening school (1932-1971) produced several famous lady alumnae including Mary Spiller (who has trained huge numbers of gardeners in Oxfordshire).” I suggest this expresses “notability” - or perhaps you don't consider “famous ladies” to be notable? This is an independent, secondary source – whether you consider the Oxford Times as reliable may be up to question, but it answers WorldBruce's “one good source” jibe!! 2. WorldBruce says "The other BBC page only says Mary was the first woman to present Gardener's World." So, apparently, it is not significant that Mary was the first female presenter on the BBC TV's Gardener's World. At the time (1980 - 35 years ago: do either of you remember the prevailing culture at the time?) there was concern amongst the producers of the programme about having a woman in what had been a traditionally male role. Of course, there is little chance of finding any independent reliable secondary evidence of this. Again, it happens to be something to do with the success/progress of women - I hope this is not a problem for you to take on board. It is clear to me that this is something of note (viewing figures of Gardeners World were 2 million plus in the UK - not quite "Coronation Street" figures, but a significant figure for a "niche" subject). 3. There is another reference early on in the article to Shirley du Boulay's book. Mary appears in this book about the gardens of 12 expert gardeners. The chapter about Mary rubs shoulders with chapters about Alan Titchmarsh, Percy Thrower and Geoffrey Smith (and 9 other eminent and notable gardeners). In the world of gardening, this rates as notability in my book! That's 3 references. Then there is the BBC TV programme: WorldBruce says "The BBC apples piece doesn't mention Spiller at all." No, the snippet from the whole programme doesn't. Elsewhere, the programme does say a lot about Mary. So how does Wikipedia cope with this? I have a [pirate] copy of the programme, but it isn't currently available on BBC iPlayer...so is this independent secondary source not relevant because you can't view it? And, of course, Mary "was awarded the RHA Associateship of Honour in July 2008 [13] [14]" - this is an honour limited to only 100 living gardeners in the UK. I wonder why she was awarded this by the Royal Horticultural Society if Mary Spiller isn't notable? Now, if you can explain your assertions about notability, I would be interested - and if you retain your views that Mary Spiller is not shown to be notable by these multiple independent sources, then your influence within Wikipedia suggests that Jimmy Wales' idea has become shallow and obsessed with only the Interweb era. Andrew Corser — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCorser (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) AndrewCorser (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Andrew Corser andycorser@gmail.com" AndrewCorser (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have several comments:
 * Sulfurboy is normally extremely active, but has made no edits at all for two weeks. It seems likely that he is in holiday.
 * You are encouraged to try to improve the article, and resubmit it. It will probably be someone else, not Sulfurboy, who assesses it next time.
 * It is usual for Wikipedia editors to avoid revealing their real identity.
 * The above wall of text will deter almost anyone from reading the whole thing – I certainly haven't.
 * I have added a BBC citation to the draft, maybe it will help. I suggest you try to find one or two more good sources for citations, and delete most of the unacceptable or marginal ones. If you resubmit, the article will be judged on quality of sources, not quantity.
 * In my (irrelevant) opinion, the draft is already good enough to be accepted. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

-
 * Mary Spiller may well be notable. The draft has been declined because in the reviewers' judgment the draft failed to establish that Spiller is notable. Articles for Creation is an iterative process: a submitter asks for a review; a reviewer evaluates the draft and, if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards, provides advice; the submitter improves the draft, and the cycle starts again.


 * I will gladly explain my review, but if a draft I have declined is resubmitted, I do not review it again at AfC. I follow this practice so that submitters get the benefit of a fresh look from a reviewer who may judge the same material differently.


 * 1)The Oxford Times article you quote was added subsequent to my review, so I have no comment on it.


 * What I wrote when I reviewed the draft about the other article in the Oxford Times (the one by Linora Lawrence) was not meant as an insult, and I apologize if it came across that way. I was attempting to show you what sort of source you should be looking for to demonstrate notability. Lawrence would be a good source for demonstrating Havergal's notability because it discusses Havergal in some depth. What is needed are sources that cover Spiller at a similar level of detail.


 * Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a source, of how far removed its content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page biography of a person is non-trivial, whereas a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Maria Gomez replaced Fred Jones") is trivial. Lawrence is not a good source for proving notablity because it's coverage of Spiller is well down at the trivial end of the scale.


 * 2) The problem with the BBC web page is again one of depth of coverage. It has a bare eight words to say about Spiller. Being the first woman to present Gardener's World is a credible claim to importance, and suggests that it's worth looking for sources that demonstrate notability, but it does not in and of itself prove notability. I find unconvincing the assertion that there is little chance of finding any independent reliable secondary evidence on this point. Wikipedia has numerous well-sourced articles about things much further back than the 1980s. Hence my suggestion that research at a library might be more productive than limiting oneself to online sources.


 * 3) The book by Shirley du Boulay is another source added subsequent to my review, so I have no comment to make on it.


 * 4) With regard to the TV programme, sources must have been published, but there is no requirement that they be available online. Each citation must provide enough information to identify the source. In this case, a sensible minimum would be the title of the episode, the name of the series, the network, air date, and time at which the event occurs in the source (e.g. "5:12 minutes in"). When a source may be difficult to access, it's good practice to include a direct quote in the citation as well, so long as the quote is not excessively long. If the programme says a lot about Spiller, you may need multiple citations, each to a different point in the programme.


 * 5) I don't know why Spiller was awarded the RHA Associateship of Honour, and the draft doesn't enlighten the reader. When I reviewed the draft, the only source cited regarding the award was one that is not independent, her employer. If an award is significant, winning it will be covered in depth by independent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines, and the problem of meeting WP:BASIC will be solved.


 * P.S. It was only by chance that I saw your posting here. Generally if you wish to communicate with an editor you need to either leave a message on their talk page, or use a template, such as Template:Ping, as this reply does. Worldbruce (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

20:58:59, 28 August 2015 review of submission by Christineink
Hi! I believe this subject is notable and am working with him personally to get the page online. Can you advise as to how (and specifically which) references can be improved so this page will be approved? Thanks. Christineink (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Christineink, you have a few good quality sources, Forbes, Washington Post and so on, but you have far too few references; there are whole paragraphs and even complete sections that have none. For a biography of a living person the referencing standard is particularly strict - every disputable fact or claim must have a proper reference. Generally we expect to see a minimum of one reference in every paragraph (if the paragraph is about only one topic/issue of course).
 * It is actually unfortunate that you are working directly with the subject as that almost inevitably leads to the inclusion of unverifiable information - stuff he knows about himself but has never been independently written about and published. It is far easier to write a Wikipedia article about people and things you know nothing about - then you are completely dependent on only the published sources you find. Throw out everything he told you that is not also specifically backed up by a published source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)