Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 25

= August 25 =

Request on 13:48:57, 25 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordfarquaad
I uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons that I own (I took the photo of the subject) and would like to put in the public domain. I thought I did that when I uploaded it (put it under the right license) but then I added it to an AfC I'm working on, it was rejected because the reviewer said the image was a copyright violation. The image is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwindt-Daniel1.jpg

Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong to make it still under copyright? It does appear elsewhere online, but under my permission.

Lordfarquaad (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I have restored the infobox with the image as I don't see any copyright problem. Perhaps  can help clarify the issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

15:33:15, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Aliciam13
!helper How do I make my references inline?


 * Hi . There is a tutorial at referencing for beginners should help. Joe Roe (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

16:35:53, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Mocana
I appreciate the feedback and time into reviewing this article for approval, but do feel that with more specifics. I did take to heart the feedback initially that this article came off too promotional and through extensive research I've been able to build out an article that I feel is far less biased in tone (or coming across as a promotion) and focuses much better on the accomplishments and leadership roles that Toby Gannett has.

Are there specific sections of concern that automatically disqualify this article?

Additionally for a photo, I can try to find another source but since this individually probably uploaded their own Headshot to LinkedIn shouldn't he have the original copyright, not LinkedIn?

Any detailed and specific help from the community would be much much appreciated!


 * Hello . I am afraid there are a number of problems with this draft:
 * Although you have made some progress, it is still highly promotional. This is an encyclopaedia, not a resume. You should be reporting the plain facts of Gannett's life and their lasting, historical significance (if any) as discussed in reliable sources – not his "accomplishments and leadership roles". Most egregiously, a large part of the article is devoted to his ancestry, which is totally irrelevant and serves only to aggrandise his "pedigree".
 * As noted by the last reviewer, File:Thomas “Toby” Brattle Gannett.jpg is probably a copyright violation. The copyright to the photo belongs to the photographer, not Gannett or LinkedIn, so unless you took it, you have no right to claim it as your "own work" and release it into the public domain (as you asserted when you uploaded it).
 * Most of all, you have given no credible indication that Gannett is notable. Wikipedia only publishes biographies of notable people, that is, people are part of the "enduring historical record in his or her specific field", which for our purposes means that they have already received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. You have only included one such reference in your draft, which is not nearly enough to establish notability. I have done some quick research and cannot find any indication that Gannett is any more noteworthy than the average businessman, which means he probably is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.
 * Sorry to be discouraging—I may be wrong, and you can continue to work on the draft if you wish—but many hundreds of articles like this are rejected for inclusion every day. Joe Roe (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

18:05:58, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Ysimpson
I am having a difficult time getting the page YSimpson/sandbox approved for publication on Wikipedia. This is the third time the page has bee deleted. I have been following the guidelines for a political page for a living person and trying to use language not to promote but to inform people about who she is and what she has been doing. I know another draft of the page is pending, I think, for consideration, but I am hoping to find out what needs to be done to get the page approved and published. Please help. Thanks1 Ysimpson (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your username is and you are writing about Yvette Simpson – are you writing an article about yourself? Doing so is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. We are an encyclopaedia, not a social networking service. Joe Roe (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

19:42:27, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Hocmyfitegre
I have spent the last couple hours trying to put in proper citations and references. I would like it if someone familiar with wikipedia guidelines could take another look and offer me helpful constructive objectives so that I may complete this article, for this notable Writer, Screenwriter, and Business owner. Thank you very much.

Hocmyfitegre (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . Can you clarify what article you are talking about? You have created two drafts on Andrew Delaplaine: Draft:Andrew Delaplaine and Draft:Andrew Delaplaine (1). But more recently you bypassed the Articles for Creation process altogether and created Andrew Delaplaine directly. The latter is fully published, so in that sense it is already as "complete" as any Wikipedia article can be (although it may very well be deleted since Delaplaine appears to be of dubious notability). Joe Roe (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

20:45:07, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Tyvoss
Greetings,

This is the second re-review that I have requested. I have added many sources of notability and cited them since the last review. When I go into live chat to discuss it with the reviewer, I am told that he still isn't sure if it's actually a notable organization in a notable industry. I believe that I have gone above and beyond showing the impact of EASA in the industry that they serve and their over 2,000 member companies (and the thousands of employees under those companies that are all members).

I feel like I could add 50 sources and it would still get declined by the reviewer. As much as I appreciate any and all guidance, getting answers like "You should not resubmit" and "Focus on the best" are not helpful in any way.

I am requesting a re-review by the help desk or, at the very least, clarification on what it takes to define "notability", because I believe I have established that.

Thank you,

Sorttou (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Two of the declines have been for tone reasons primarily rather than notability reasons. The draft reads as though its primary purpose is to advertise the association to companies in the industry rather than to provide the public with information about a notable organization.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)