Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 March 23

= March 23 =

Request on 07:34:00, 23 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by A.p.balakrishnan
A.p.balakrishnan (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. What is your question about the draft? /wiae /tlk  12:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

12:47:41, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Van donge
Dear Editor, I can imagine that at first sight you came to a conclusion that this proposed contribution was not neutral in tone etc. However, may I ask you to reconsider this contribution as it is written much more subtly than may appear at first sight. Firstly, the item has to mention controversy. It is not informative if a contribution to an encyclopaedia may not mention that a politician is controversial while that is an essential element of the identity. Second, I outline controversies surrounding policy making and corruption. However, I do not take sides on the policy issue and give sources where Arthur Somare defends himself. With respect to corruption I mention the allegations but I bring out that he denies them and that these have hardly led to convictions. I cannot detect particular Peacock Terms in the contribution. I do not think that mentioning that Michael Somare is considered as father of the nation or that Arthurs Somare is a key policy maker are examples of Peacock terms. Again, please can you reconsider. Jan Kees van Donge

Van donge (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

13:14:04, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Mtatro56
Could you explain why this article was declined? Mtatro56 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . It was declined because it fails to show, using independent, reliable, secondary sources, that the subject meets any of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, the most relevant of which is Notability (music). There are seven billion people in the world. Each has a story. That doesn't mean they each get a biography written about them in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. It is not for resume hosting, self-promotion, or public relations. Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

16:43:43, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Shelleycaldwell
Shelleycaldwell (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC) I have made the suggested changes. Would anyone be willing to take a look at my article and let me know what else I can do to improve it? Also, when I google Cham Hendon, the article does not come up. Is it because it's not yet polished enough or is there something I should do to connect it to Google for Cham Hendon? Thank you for your help. Shelleycaldwell (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting info.svg Hi . This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Once a draft has been accepted, it is outside of our scope. There are formal mechanisms for getting opinions about improving an article, such as Peer reviews. An alternative is to get involved in a WikiProject, such as Biography or Arts. Some have their own peer review process. Often a good way to get ideas for improvements is to edit more articles. As you become a more experienced Wikipedian you'll find ways to improve your first article. If unsure where to start, check out these ways to help out.


 * In the context of your question, Wikipedia (including you) has no control over when or whether Google indexes or reuses our content. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

16:49:30, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Giannara
HI, I have been told that my submission has been declined becuase of in-line citations. I don't know how to amend this? Please could you give me advice as to how this can be corrected?


 * Hi . Although inline citations are highly desirable, they are NOT required in order for the draft to be accepted (see WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). I have commented further on the draft regarding remaining problems and paths forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

17:50:49, 23 March 2016 review of submission by 3fivesix
3fivesix (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janice_Marturano

Hello! I keep working on my first submission to wikipedia but it unfortunately keeps getting rejected and I'm hoping receive some help here.

I'm surprised that a couple past editors who reviewed the entry don't think that the subject is notable enough. She is one of the first people (if not the first person) to tie the extremely popular and growing mindfulness meditation movement to the business/leadership world. There are lots of articles written by her and about her work published on the web (which I've tried to cite and link to). She was the person who actually coined the ubiqitous term "mindful leadership" but, unfortunately, I don't have any citable evidence online to clearly prove this but it is generally considered to be true.

Her book was a Nautilus Book Silver Award winner and is a regular speaker at some of the world's biggest conferences that deal with the subject (World Economic Forum, etc)

She was personally selected by Arianna Huffington as a "Huffington Post Pioneer" and a video was made about her work and published on the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/janice-marturano-mindful-leadership_us_56e81b1ae4b0b25c91833a84

Her book and the online course based on is a required part of the curriculum at New York University's Stern School of Business. (I would have put this in the entry but don't have any reference in print to cite. should I go ahead and put it in?)

Not sure what else would strengthen the case. Can you give me some advice here?

Thanks very much in advance!!

3fivesix (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)3fivesix
 * Hi . The draft is much improved since the second review. I don't believe notability is still seriously in question, but there are further improvements you can make while waiting for the next review. I've outlined them in detail on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your advice I've made the suggested changes in the draft! 3fivesix


 * Hi,, adding my 2 cents. You do have some very good references, but you also have some poor ones that probably should be removed. It never helps your case for notability to have inappropriate references. As examples, author bios at places like HuffPost and your Mindful.org are not considered reliable because they are 1) often written by the author themselves and 2) necessarily one-sided (making the author look good). You should avoid those if you can. Also, you say "Janice Marturano was selected by Arianna Huffington as a Huffington Post Pioneer" but none of your sources actually say that. What the article says is: "The video is the fifth episode of Pioneers, a new HuffPost Originals series that profiles leaders in various industries who have redefined success by making it their mission to live more meaningful and less stressful lives." The author of the article is not Arianna, and she isn't mentioned. Some paraphrase of that would be appropriate, not what you have in the article. Making something sound broader or more important than it is is considered promotion, and we are very careful about not allowing promotion on WP. I haven't looked at other statements in the article, but as an AfC reviewer I feel especially cautious when I see any exaggeration in an article. LaMona (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Great points , thanks for helping me sort this out. By the way, if you watch the video on Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington herself talks on screen about Marturano and why she was selected as a Huffington Post Pioneer. I wasn't sure how to say it another way that didn't seem like over exaggeration, so I let it stand as is. If that's not ok, of course please let me know. Thanks again! 3fivesix