Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 December 23

= December 23 =

11:28:34, 23 December 2018 review of submission by Oliviasha
I disagree with the abolition of an article entitled HandSkills. Because this article contains information about a company that can be used as a reference for people when they want to study and conduct research on objects rather than articles titled HandSkills. So please, consider the reasons for your removal again. Thank you Oliviasha (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Oliviasha This is the wrong place to make your case. See the deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

11:31:42, 23 December 2018 review of draft by CullingJ
I am attempting to publish an article on a prominent academic, Quentin Summerfield. The initial article described his career and included references to some examples of his work. On first submitting the article, I was told by an editor that there was insufficient evidence on notability and that I needed to provide evidence of the what others had said about him, rather than citations of his own work. I added some quotes, mainly from editorials in academic journals, where his work had received special mention, including, where available, links and references. So, these are published secondary sources. On resubmission, a second editor said that it now read like an advertisement, and that it needed to be from a neutral point of view. It seems to me that there there may be a tension between establishing notability and avoiding advertisement. I feel the need for some guidance on how to tread this line. The second editor also remarked that I needed to declare COI, if I had one. I read the COI page and am left unsure whether this applies. I worked for him for a period of four years between 1991 and 1995. The article did not address past employment.

CullingJ (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Working for someone many years ago is not a COI. Yes there is tension so we try to write neutrally. I'll look at the page and comment there. Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have accepted the page as he meets WP:PROF. It could use some reorganization to place the early life just after the lead and placement of refs at every couple sentences. It is a good first effort. Legacypac (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

12:02:19, 23 December 2018 review of draft by EmilyEr
Hello, The submitted page is a direct translation of a page that exists in Hebrew. The source cited for the information is a very long introduction to Chetrit's work. All of the information was confirmed and elaborated on by Prof. Chetrit himself. In addition, here are links to university sites that confirm the information: http://josephchetrit.haifa.ac.il/p-chitrit/Pubications%20English.pdf http://josephchetrit.haifa.ac.il/p-chitrit/index-fra.htm

What can I do to publish this page? are the links valid sources? thanks in advance

EmilyEr (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Page has only one reference. With only one ref we can't evaluate the article. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

19:09:25, 23 December 2018 review of draft by MrAdamR
Good Evening, I am getting more and more confused by the feedback I am receiving for an article I am trying to submit. Every time I get feedback I am doing exactly what is requested. My most recent feedback has been that my references are not significant coverage. However every article used are focused on the film mentioned specifically, it is not just in passing. And they are from Sweden's main new sources, and it is a Swedish film. I am unsure why they are considered to be not published or reliable. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

MrAdamR (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The current form does appear to be publishable. Filming has already finished, so WP:NFF can't shoot it down.  Since you have not re-submitted it for review, it did not come to anyone's attention.  I'll try to figure out how to move it to article space now.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

22:35:02, 23 December 2018 review of submission by Oldperson
{{Lafc|username=Oldperson|ts=22:35:02, 23 December 2018|link=

Draft:John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company) First things first. Trying to follow the instructions there was no header bar so I posted instructions 1, three times, apologies. My Draft was rejected for the following Reasons: Submission rejected on 21 December 2018 by K.e.coffman (talk).

This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.Oldperson (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

How is this topic, about a Notable person who was Deputy Governor/Treasurer of the Viginia Company of London, contrary to the purpose of wikipedia? I request an explanation please. I do not see ehow it violates the Five Pillars of WP

I also assumed that there were questions about a quotation in the text.An acussation of Copyvio was made. I read the requirements for quotations and fulfilled them. First I cited the source then I encapsulated them with apostrophes and {{quote test and finally provided a citation as to their source, third the quote was short, not lengthy and met the standard of fair use.

I asked why the draft was rejected, what was wrong, and no answer was provided. How does one respond to a vague statement? When something is rejected or critiqued, the author is due the courtesy of an explanation. I have a feeling that asking Why? Is considered disrespectful when in all honest the question is asked in good faith.

I honestly do not believe that there are any grounds for rejection. The topic (about a notable person) is not contrary to WP, and I fulfilled the WP policy for using quotations. I would appreciate an full explanation as to why it was rejected. 22:35:02, 23 December 2018 review of submission by Oldperson

WHERE IS THE HEADER?
Following instructions I clicked on Ask For advice.

I was taken to a page, the first insttuctions were: First, copy and paste the following code in the header bar:

01:43:05, 24 December 2018 review of submission by Oldperson However there was no Header Bar. So I posted my request above Help anyone?Oldperson (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You had it right the first time, I've merged your two sections. Will further address your post in a moment. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You need secondary or tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic or even journalistic sources that specifically and primarily discuss John Ferrar at length (not just passing mentions). Sources about Nicholas Ferrar are not effective because notability is not inherited.  Primary sources are not effective because existence is not the same as notability.  Notability is established when there are professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with the subject.  For example, the diary of Cotton Mather does nothing to establish the notability of the Salem witch trials, but later academic works which analyzed primary sources like that one do.
 * The simplest way to write a draft that won't be rejected is to do nothing but summarize at least three professionally-published non-primary academic sources specifically about the subject just to establish notability, then expanding it with other sources later. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * {ping|Ian.thomson}} Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally a clear concise explanation. I now understand. You have no idea how much I appreciate your time and effort. Can I ask you to check out Draft:John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company) I just modified it this morning. Got rid of the quotes, and I believe that there are at least three references as to his notability. I could be wrong. If so. I don't know how. At the very least could the Stop Sign template be removed, and the comments about overquote (which I have resolved) and a new template for re-submission, with if appropriate a comment about more references. ThanksOldperson (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)