Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 February 27

= February 27 =

02:41:36, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Jonathan lipworth
Hi, the article is named andrew robert korda and I'd like to change it to andrew korda - I can't see this in the edit options

This may seem like a very dumb question, but a friend helped me to start the page for the first round - so I am not sure if my name was used as the article creator - although the message says I am the creator

Is it possible to check this

Mant thanks

Jonathan

Jonathan lipworth (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Jonathan! I've moved your page to Andrew Korda– you can learn moar about moving by checking out WP:MOVE. Congrats on the article! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

04:32:15, 27 February 2015 review of submission by RichLynPalm
My attempt to create a page for myself as a Literary Artist was declined. I am a living American Poet and writer, a fact that I can prove. If T.S. Eliot or hollywood people can have pages why can't I? RichLynPalm (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard– I'm the one who declined your article. I left the following comment: "We need moar information on Palmer. Please also add references from reliable sources that prove Palmer's notability and the correctness of this article." To expound on this, there are a few major issues with the article. First, there is hardly any information on you. We are only given your birthdate and a list of your works. We need much moar information on you; examples of this include childhood, career, what critics think of your work, etc. Another issue is that you are writing an article about yourself. While this isn't necessarily against Wikipedia's rules, it's generally advised against, as this can be seen as a conflict of interest, meaning that you will be biased toward yourself; bias is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see this link for moar information on writing with a neutral point of view. Finally, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, not everyone should have their own article. If everyone got their own article, Wikipedia would be much harder to maintain and would have tons of problems with neutral points of view and other things. To fix this, Wikipedia has a guideline called notability; this determines whether or not someone is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals, the following criteria must be met for a person in that profession to have an article:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * If you can prove these things in your article, it will be accepted. If you aren't sure if you pass one or moar of these rules, let me know and I'll try to help you. Please note that you must include references to prove what you write is true. Please respond here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any moar questions, and good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Request on 06:11:48, 27 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 202.59.227.245
I tried to set up a page for my son Cameron Clark Rugby but it was not successful. Since then the Australian Rugby Union has started a page. Do I try to set up my original page or simply try to submit new material to the existing page.

Thanks

202.59.227.245 (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Clark3011 you are welcome to provide additional information for the Cameron Clark (rugby union) article, but as you have a conflict of interest due to being a close relative of the subject, it is not advisable for you to edit the article directly. Instead you should post the changes you want to the article's Talk page and remember to always include a published source that backs up the information - due to the verifiability policy we cannot accept personal knowledge or unpublished sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

11:41:31, 27 February 2015 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU
Hi Wikipedia Editors! Please have a look at this page and if you can please help work on it with the way its written please let me know! This has been deleted before but I think because it was worded incorrectly. The sources are notable and reliable! I mean they are from the biggest media outlets in NZ. I just need advise and an editors help!

Thank You! спасибо! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DmitryPopovRU (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:46:31, 27 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tsssr.prasad
BFF Metric has evolved as a by-product of our conversation on Visual Communication in Linkedin

(https://www.linkedin.com/groups/What-Amount-Visual-Communication-can-4652376.S.5974746040958537730?view=&gid=4652376&type=member&item=5974746040958537730#commentID_null)

I need the definition of this QA Metric to be available to the general public thru Wiki.

Please help me in this process

Tsssr.prasad (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Conversations on LinkedIn are not reliable sources except in very exceptional circumstances. If no independent reliable sources have discussed this metric, then it is not yet appropriate for there to be an article about it in Wikipedia. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

13:04:28, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Habatchii
Thank you for your consideration. The topic article 'False production' has been deemed inadmissible for inclusion on the basis that it was stated as not having a substantial social definition. Yet, the topic has been cited by administrative and judicial bodies on a global scale and proportion. Argument in favor of inclusion is supported by notable usage, of which ends and social acceptance justifies its means of definition.

With respect for the staff of Wikipedia, a general quiry of reference may substantiate viability of inclusion. The support of legal notes, citations, codification and other official processes may also not be admissible by Wikipedia standards, due to the nature of administration in which they are used in legal settings. I am by no means stating Wikipedia should expand its definition of neologism to include the omission of legal processes. The topic of legal situations in general should be under a separate custodianship that the legal community may research its content for viability and authoritative referencing.

Accordingly, hundreds of thousands of instances on the topic of false production can be inquried over the world wide web; including news articles, books, court hearings and pictures. Wikipedia's stance on substantiating a foundation of definitive references should be waived in 'special circumstances of public and social importance or significance'; as in the case of such a working phrase as 'false production'. I am in open dialogue with the Smithsonian Institute and the United States Library of Congress to more thoroughly reference this topic and its matriculation within governmental, corporate and institutional systems. I do strongly encourage the staff of Wikipedia to redact its position on legal neologism entries into the encyclopedia and include a well structured article on the positive and negative perspectives of the false production article.

Thank you again in advance for your swift and professional response. Habatchii (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The books and news articles would be the best sources to concentrate on. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

15:41:44, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Steven Paul Fisher
Steven Paul Fisher (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I had an article in Sandbox rejected because it does not have footnotes. I have had a number of previous entriesl accepted without footnotes and wondered why I need them for this one.

Steven Paul Fisher Steven Paul Fisher (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This may have been a mistake on the part of the reviewer... Roeder is long dead, and MINREF would therefore appear not to apply. Pinging for information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was wrong to presume that WP:MINREF applied to this article. However, after a second look, what I think needs doing is adding the references to the places in the text where they correspond to rather than a mass of them at the bottom. —CraigyDavi (T∙C∙@) 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

15:43:31, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Anthony Bradbury
Anthony Bradbury (talk)

The submitted articles Draft:Soft Robotics has been rejected by and marked for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, numerous attempts to contact the reviewer to clarify the issues were futile. He might be too busy. I am afraid, that the whole article might be deleted and the work of numerous people will be lost. The issue seems to be a copyright infringement, but we don't have access to the draft and therefore we can not delete the picture or get the missing copyright information. Also the link to rebuttal the decision does not work. It would be great if anyone could help to rectificy the issue.

Thank you. Kind regards,

SirJamesHunt (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a correct link to Anthony Bradbury's talk page: User talk:Anthony Bradbury.


 * The draft being deleted would have nothing to do with a copyright issue with an image on the page. An image file might be deleted separately if there were also a copyright issue with the image. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping (talk)

Dear Arthur, thanks a lot for the feedback, but Anthony Bradbury does not respond to our questions on his talk page. Trying to find some help, I ended up here on this page. I would like to help to solve the issue, but I don't know what I could/should do, since there is not information coming back from the reviewer. Any advice would be very, very much appreciated.

Thank you Arthur.

Kind regards, Helmut — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you go to Requests for undeletion and request that the article content be emailed to you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

21:10:08, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Pranaz2014
The username is Pranaz2014. I would like to edit the article and resubmit for acceptance. How can I improve my chances for acceptance. Pranaz2014 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not think there is any chance of an article about that person being accepted, unless you can establish that they meet the requirements of VRS, which may well not be possible. You would also need to avoid promotional language like "is a prime example of the type of public health professional needed in order to bring prevention to the forefront of America’s health outcomes". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)