Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 2

= May 2 =

00:47:23, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Salomėja Nėris
Can someone please help me write the article on 'Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales' so that it is in line with Wikipedia's standards?

Here are some similar articles that exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo_House,_University_of_New_South_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSW_Hall,_University_of_New_South_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basser_College,_University_of_New_South_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creston_College,_University_of_New_South_Wales

I just want a similar article for Fig Tree Hall, so far I feel like I've been unfairly targeted by Wikipedia editors. I don't think they understand that Fig Tree Hall is a separate organisation and needs its own page. Fig Tree Hall is one of the larger colleges on campus - if a college like Creston that only has 30 students can have a wikipedia page, Fig Tree Hall should also have this right.

The page was deleted earlier this year; previously it had existed since 2014 and was of a much worse standard than the one I had written. Again, I don't understand why editors are just targeting the Fig Tree Hall page. In terms of secondary sources I reference a book written about the Kensington Colleges and an essay published by University Colleges Australia. Many other college pages don't even use secondary sources, and they were accepted.

I am not trying to cause conflict or vandalism, I just want the Fig Tree Hall page published, and at the moment the absence of the Fig Tree Hall page makes Wikipedia appear discriminatory - Fig Tree Hall was originally designed to accommodate students of an Islamic background - to ignore the representation of these students in UNSW's history is unjust.

Salomėja Nėris (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Salomėja. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Your question raises some substantial issues.  But I think it helpful to note that no one is "targeting" your draft.  Although it is true that the other residences have their own articles, this might simply be explained by a failure of other editors to recognize that, despite having the word "college" in their names, they are not actually separately-accredited institutions.  Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that those other residences should have their own articles, either.  I took a very quick look at some of them and it seems that they suffer the same problem as does yours -- a heavy reliance on primary sources and a dearth of substantial coverage of them by reliable independent sources.  As just a thought, perhaps all of these articles (plus your draft) could be merged into UNSW Residential Communities.  Such a merger would need to be discussed and, if you wish, you can start that discussion.  If so, feel free to ask for information about how to do this.  Also feel free to ask any other questions you might have about this response. Comments from other reviewers here will be welcome.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 06:32:50, 2 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yentlvereecke
I wanted to write an article about Critical Communication. My draft was reviewed and declined. It said that the article should be written by a neutral point of view and without any opinions. But I feel like the text is already objective. So how can I further improve it?

Yentlvereecke (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Yentlvereecke. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I agree with the reviewer -- your draft reads like a sales pitch.  But rather than explore that point in any detail, I'll note that the draft is unlikely to be accepted for publication even if it is re-written, because we already have an article on emergency communication systems.  I encourage you to take a look at that already-existing article and see what you might do to improve it.  If you have any questions about that article, feel free to open up a discussion on the Talk page of that article.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 11:45:08, 2 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Zoe izoza
Hi, I have created an article and was rejected by Wiki and I have changed the topic and content. However, i am not sure if my article has been resubmit to Wiki for approval yet as I cant find the "submit bottom" in my sandbox page My sandbox page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zoe_izoza/sandbox Kindly advise. If I have not yet submitted, kindly advise how to do so.

Zoe izoza (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Zoe. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Your draft has been submitted for review and is now located at Draft:Ashkan Mokhtarian.  It will probably take a few weeks before a reviewer has a chance to look at it.  If you're looking for something to do in the meantime, I invite you to visit our Community portal, where you'll find a list of articles that could use various sorts of assistance.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

16:44:49, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Therealclarkbrown
Hi, I recently created a new article for the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners. I have the permission of the company's executive director to create the page so I used some content from their website. I don't want to deal with the potential for speedy deletion nor do I want to go through the rigamarole of documenting his permission, so I removed any content that might appear to be copyrighted. Will that be enough for my article to be accepted for submission? Are there any tips you could share so that I could get this article accepted? Thanks! Therealclarkbrown (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Clark. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Avoiding copyright infringement is an essential element of getting a draft published on Wikipedia.  But it's not the only element.  You still need to demonstrate that the organization has received in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources, and then begin to form an article by summarizing what has been said about the organization by those third-party sources.  So far, you haven't even started on that task and, until you do, your draft will not be accepted for publication.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

17:44:58, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Greg Hullender
I thought I had two independent references to establish notability: the link to the Teleread article and the link the the page reporting that Rocket Stack Rank was a Hugo-Award nominee. Is more than that required, or did I just not make it clear enough in the article?

For comparison, I'm going for something like the page for Tangent Online, which is similar to Rocket Stack Rank

Separately, there's a conflict of interest in that I'm the co-editor for Rocket Stack Rank. Since it's entirely non-monetized (no fees, no ads, no affiliate codes, and no begging for money) I hope that isn't a problem, but I wanted to be up front about it. Should I put that info on the page somewhere?

Greg (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Greg. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Fanzines have a tough time here on Wikipedia, because they are generally judged on the basis of the criteria for magazines (found here) and few fanzines can meet those criteria.  Frankly, I'm not all that sure that even Tangent meets them, although they can at least point to a twenty-five year history.  And being nominated for a Hugo is not at all the same as winning it.  But even if your magazine does prove to be the winner, there is still the question of whether that counts as a "major" award.  I noticed that the number of ballots that even bothered to select a "best fanzine" was only about a third of those who did so for "best novel", so it's reasonable to ask if even the Hugo voters believe that "best fanzine" is a major award.  Aside from the criteria that are specific to magazines, you might try to establish notability under the "general" guidelines of WP:GNG.  But here, your claim is based solely on the article on Teleread.com (the listing on the Hugo site doesn't count as substantial coverage of the magazine).  One article from a website that does not appear to be itself particularly notable is probably not going to be enough to demonstrate satisfaction with WP:GNG. I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to get.  But as things stand right now, I don't see a compelling case for encyclopedic notability.  But a different reviewer might feel differently, so I encourage you to take your best shot at it. Regarding your conflict of interest, we thank you for declaring it.  More information can be found at our conflict of interest guidelines. I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)