Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 October 17

= October 17 =

14:37:22, 17 October 2016 review of submission by PotatoMasta
I submitted an article that appears to be a joke or a hoax, but is not. It is about an object that is very famous in itself, and while the object in itself is and was originally a joke, the article about it was not a joke. The object in question is a bathtoy that is well known (probably about 1,200 people) in the schools mentioned and the surrounding towns thereof, and is very much shrouded in myth. I want to create a Wikipedia article that can assist in removing these myths and give a little bit of simple history about this "mascot" of a sort. The article I created was submitted once, rejected, then fixed to remove many of the personal remarks made by the individual who created this joke (the alleged primary caretaker) and insisted that this toy be given a personality of his own in creation of this article. Again I submitted, but was rejected for the same reason: it being a joke. I would like to know if there is any way I can remove the hoax/joke status on this article and get it submitted as it was originally meant to be? I do not want to corrupt Wikipedia with stupid jokes, and I understand the reason why individuals aren't allowed to make articles about themselves or their friends, but The Hippo is a famous object in itself and is probably more well known than the "Primary Caretaker" himself. How can I make this article be serious even though it is about a popular joke?

PS: And also, there are other popular jokes with articles about them in Wikipedia. Nutopia, for example, is one of those, but there are many more. How is this joke any different?

PPS: I am not angry about this, just rather disappointed. Please do not take this as a hate message.


 * This article, to me, looks to be a joke. Should it not be a joke, it lacks notability and references, which are other reasons for declination should you decide to resubmit.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As one of the two reviewers who declined it, I am willing to believe the author that the article is not a joke but is about a joke that has the status of local legend among a community of about one thousand teenagers, just as the author says. However, there is nothing unusual or notable about local legends that are passed on among communities of teenagers, or, for that matter, among communities of adults.  As the previous poster said, it lacks references and notability.  Just because something isn't in the list of things that Wikipedia is not] doesn't mean that something belongs in Wikipedia; the list of what Wikipedia is not is incomplete.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Would a yearbook count as an accurate source if I were to try to establish it as a more accurate article? PotatoMasta
 * I personally don't know whether I would accept the yearbook as a reliable source. I wouldn't accept it as a sufficient source for establishing the notability of the subject.  (That is, the yearbook may be reliably true but irrelevant.)  There is nothing unusual or notable about local legends that are passed among communities.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that high school yearbooks have been used as reliable sources for documenting the high school attended by persons who are biographically notable for some unrelated reason. That isn't the same as establishing notability.  I wouldn't trust a high school yearbook as a reliable source for establishing trivia about a notable person.  While the faculty advisor, who is a professional, will verify that the person is a member of the senior class and will ensure that the yearbook is free of libel (serious BLP violations), she will not necessarily verify the truth of every trivial fact stated in the yearbook.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that if what you want to do is to document the legend about the Hippo, who is said to be an intelligent being, et cetera, you really need an urban folklorist, who might be interested in this as representing a class of urban folklore, rather than Wikipedia. The story is interesting only as illustrating a class of folklore, not as being unusual enough for Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem here is that there don't seem to be any truly Independent sources. Do we have an article about the school? Perhaps you should start from that end, research the school's history, find a few good sources, and then you can include a section about the Hippo. You could also ask the topic specialists at WikiProject Popular Culture for advice and assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two schools mentioned here. One does not have an article (it was established only two years ago), but the other does. Do you want me to first create the article for the one that does not, and edit the other to include a section about The Hippo? Both schools had a huge impact on The Hippo's evolution, but the one that has an article does not include The Hippo in the page.
 * Thank you very much for your concern in getting this accurately published somewhere (even if not Wikipedia), it is highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoMasta (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I do not understand how the administrators at Wikipedia will not accept it. To me it seems that this user PotatoMasta is being unfairly treated for writing an article about something that, based on the wording of the article, is very passionate about. There are articles elsewhere on Wikipedia that have been an actual hoax, but they have been published and not this article. And all this other garbage is just that, garbage. Also why does an article of this nature (a nature of folklore) have to be cited. This article will never be used by a person as a citation, and anyway Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. If you have ever noticed (and I'm sure that since you are an administrator of Wikipedia that you are extremely biased toward Wikipedia) but no person ever uses Wikipedia as a source because Wikipedia is seen as an incredibly unreliable source. So by this reasoning, Wikipedia should not require that every article have to require articles, especially those that are folklore, to have a great multitudes of sources from sites that are actually reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones12735 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

19:18:09, 17 October 2016 review of draft by Toreeva
Hello, The problem could be complicated but I need help with the article. The article itself was already on Wikipedia, but the person followed me and each time trying to delete it. I did complained, and instead to resolve the problem with that person, my article was put into Draft category and I was not permitted to do the editing the Draft. Instead, someone recommended me to use the Sandbox, where I would add the material which someone could use for the Draft. And I did created the Sandbox with addition sources which could be used for the Draft. My question is: do you have someone who knows the Russian lang. and the Russian art of 60-70s, because the article is related to the art of that time, and some of the references are in Russian. And another question is: do you have also editors who is NOT bias, and who is willing to look into Draft and Sandbox and to help to improve the article with the good faith, and to submit the Draft for review? I'm opened for any question that person(s) might have. Thank you in advance.Toreeva (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Toreeva (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely understand what the author is saying, because of the quality of the English. I agree that she might be better able to explain what the situation is in Russian to someone who is fluent in Russian.  I understand that censorship of the arts in totalitarian including communist countries may make verifiability complicated.  The conflict of interest guideline and the autobiographical guideline still apply, and we are likely to be more willing to correct any errors in a biography of a living person than to assist a living person in writing their own biography.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, [User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]], I don't think I need to explain my situation in Russian, because I'm Russian and American artist, and I'm living in US since 1977. I created the info about our art schools and groups in Leningrad section (see Unofficial art in Russia) about artists of 60-70th, and the scholars asked me to include the info about myself, so people, who is reading the input, know that the article was written by the real person, who is not "dead" yet. And I feel it is my responsibility to include the artists of that time, and many of them are not alive. Therefore I created the Article, not as the bio, but as info of that time. In Russia, I was the artist, earned MA degree in Art, participated in the exhibitions, which were restricted by government to participate, and worked in the Lenfilm film studio. Here is US, I graduated DePaul Univ, Chicago, and earned MS degree in Computer Science, worked as the computer scientist and system analyst, and having 5 patents. In parallel I do art work, book illustrations, wrote 3 children books, and partic. in many liter. journals. The article already was in wiki, but was put back as the Draft. The notability was approved before by Tea house, but still question was raised, if I have my work in Museums, why there is no references to that? Where you can find the record about the museums collections in Russia? I have the official letters from 5 Museums where they accepted my art work into their collection, but you don't accept the emails. So how I can prove you? In another artists of my time (see, for example, A. Rapoport, or any Leningrad groups in Russia), the articles have only the names of the museums, but not references about that artist's work in their collection. Because, the Internet is only in the beginning stage, they don't have the webs with the names of the artists. So, how I can prove it, if in another artists article, no provided references were included? I have for the info the Sandbox, where I included the museums, who have my art work, and another material, articles, which could prove the notability. I need just editor(s) who is willing to look into Draft and Sandbox info, and would combine the info from Sandbox to the Draft with the good English, and submit again the Draft. And I'm opened for any question you might have. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)