Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 November 1

= November 1 =

19:45:35, 1 November 2015 review of submission by Mrkacrawford
Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia submission, E-teaching. I understand that it was rejected because of a similarity with another topic--Technology Integration As I am new to content creation on Wikipedia, I was wondering if you could answer a few questions: 1.) When does a subject become so broad that new pages related to the existing page are allowed to be created? e.g. -> Hockey and Highsticking 2.) How does an editor decide whether there is enough interest on a topic (that is related to an existing topic) to justify the creation of a new page? Is there research put into how many users have searched these terms? 3.) When someone wants to add a page and they see that the topic has been deleted due to copyright issues or self-promotion? Does this not indicate to the editor that there may be a demand for this page? 4.) How does the first submission editor miss something as big as an already existing topic the first time around? This process seems a little messy to a first time user. (The first submission was much shorter as well)

With all due respect, I think it's apparent from reading my questions that I disagree with your rejection. Technology Integration is an excellent topic and I'm glad it exists. However, as a researcher and educator, I think more focus needs to be put on the pedagogical practices that incorporate technology integration i.e., e-Teaching. For example teaching and learning are two very different processes that and are deserved of separate pages discussing their nuances and connections to each other. The same can be said with e-Leanring and e-Teaching. As a researcher and educator, It's kind of hard to not feel discouraged by this editorial process within Wikipedia when so much time and effort has been put into a submission. I am not only challenging this decision, I'm asking for a little more information so it doesn't happen again and I can happily find existing information gaps within the larger topic of education on Wikipedia.

Additionally, I searched the multiple names for E-teaching and none of them kicked me to technology integration. E-learning did however redirect me to [Educational technology] NOT Technology integration.

When you search E-teaching the following only superficially related articles are given in the search results.

Sincerely, mrkacrawford

Mrkacrawford (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not an issue if you disagree with a review. Have you opened a dialogue with the reviewer with whom you disagree? I am sure will be happy to discuss this with you. Hackles down, though, please. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, many processes are arcane and unsatisfactory, but 5,000,000 articles have arrived here, most of which are good quality
 * I have neither read your draft nor the existing article. I am just pointing you, for the moment, at the very desirable goal of opening a dialogue with that reviewer. Fiddle   Faddle  23:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:36:49, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Misssarta
Hi there. I used to work as a rock journalist and always thought Vivabeat was a remarkable 80's band with a great story and a lot of credibility, so decided to set up a wikipedia page for them but am having a hard time. Can you please help me figure out what I'm missing with the citations?

Thanks much.

Telli

Misssarta (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Glad you came! I'd suggest reading WP:REFB for a good introduction to referencing your content at Draft:Vivabeat. You'll want to wrap the citations themselves in '' Then the list of references will automagically appear at the bottom of your article, just beneath the "References" header. You can always find an existing article and see how it handles references too, if you can't quite get it to work in your draft. Thanks, /wia   /tlk   /cntrb  23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

23:45:13, 1 November 2015 review of submission by Srea632
Srea632 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Why was my arcticle for Stephen Rea estate agents rejected?


 * Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. If you look at the draft (Draft:Stephen Rea Estate Agents), you will see in the pink box at the top that the draft was rejected because it does not show the notability of the company in question. As a first principle, Wikipedia articles about companies need to demonstrate that they are notable. Not every company is deserving of a Wikipedia article—after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a directory listing every business in existence.
 * There are thus a few issues with the article. First, there are no references, making it difficult to ascertain exactly why the company might be notable or whether the claims made are verifiable. Further, the draft appears to be slightly promotional in nature—I'm thinking in particular of phrases like "one of Northern Ireland's leading Estate Agents for Sales, Rentals and New Builds" and "an award winning Team of specialists". Those sentences sound like they are designed to attract new customers to the business. Wikipedia has a strict point of view policy that eschews such promotionalism in favour of neutral, unbiased prose. Finally, I should mention that if you are somehow connected to the company, then you have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
 * Where to go from here if you do not have a conflict of interest? You might try looking for reliable, independent sources dealing with the company in some depth. I suspect (and this is my opinion; other reviewers may differ in opinion) that the company is simply not notable. However, if you can demonstrate that the subject meets the corporation notability requirements, then more power to you!
 * Let us know if you have further specific questions about the draft. Thanks, /wia   /tlk   /cntrb  00:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)