Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 January 3

= January 3 =

08:20:02, 3 January 2015 review of submission by Dr Deborah Swallow
Context: In the last 20 years, diplomats have had to face a whole raft of experiences they have never been trained to deal with. Terrorism, huge migrations of people fleeing conflict, world recession, etc. A different style of education and training is required. This article is supposed to help people understand that there is a new DOCTORATE qualification beginning. Currently only one university is validated to run it, (the one that devised it and has worked hard over a couple of years to get it recognised and validated...). Soon many other universities will be offering it - a university in Australia is in the planning stages to offer this at the mid-end of 2015, and others around the world thereafter. IT IS IMPORTANT that governments of emerging nations with little understanding of training diplomats see this qualification as valid.

Please can you explain why this page was refused? I tried to find the right tone and style and used two pages already up. How does the one I wrote differ? How is the tone wrong compared with these two pages? How can I make it right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Business_Administration

Thanks, your help is appreciated Dr Deborah Swallow 08:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Debby

Dr Deborah Swallow 08:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Deborah Swallow (talk • contribs)

Dr Deborah Swallow 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear : I presume that you need help with User:Dr Deborah Swallow/Professional Doctor of Diplomacy, which was recently declined.  The text of your submission is indeed too essay-like, including arguments and discussion as to why students should sign up for this course.  However, there is a more serious problem with this submission.  Google reports only two hits on the title "Professional Doctor of Diplomacy" - both items created by you.  Wikipedia only has articles about topics that have been written about extensively in published sources by journalists and other authors. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

17:21:53, 3 January 2015 review of submission by Belize Independent Green Party
I have no idea why the page for Belize Independent Green Party has been declined. Please help! Belize Independent Green Party (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * left a long comment on Draft:Luis Blas Mendez Sr. why they declined it. You should read that. Wikipedia is not your own private website. We are an online encyclopedia with content standards. Further, you never submitted Draft:Belize Green Independent Party for review, which is why I haven't declined it yet. That draft is promotional, too. I've already requested your account to be blocked since your username and your editing indicates you're here to advertise. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Quoting myself here just for context:
 * You are not quite getting the idea of Wikipedia. It is not like FaceBook or LinkedIn where you can just write whatever. We accept only documented facts, presented in a neutral manner.


 * To be totally frank, this draft is so fawning it is literally embarassing to read it. So you absolutely need to cut off the constant syrupy praising of Mendez, stop calling him "Mr. Mendez" (just "Mendez" please), and stick to serious facts.


 * We don't want just a re-hashing of Mendez's CV, Wikipedia is not for resumes. What we want is facts documented by neutral parties. What have national and regional newspapers said about him? Here's a hint, if there's a fact about him that no newspaper has bothered to record, Wikipedia probably doesn't care about that fact. We only care about things that meet our policy WP:Notability.


 * If Mendez has achieved a body of news media and academic note, than please include those sources, and cite the facts to those sources when possible, or remove said facts.
 * If you can do that, and also remove the praising tone and stick to bare facts, such as that Mendez's best friend and worst enemy would equally agree the article is neutral, then that will be an article we can publish. Please make said fixes and hit Resubmit once you have, for your next review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)