Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 7

= April 7 =

07:17:37, 7 April 2019 review of submission by Charlie1276
Because it is only a short page containing nothing bad and he has really wanted a Wikipedia page so more people can find him.

Charlie1276 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

12:27:08, 7 April 2019 review of submission by Jakubdonovan
Jakubdonovan (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your company is not sufficiently notable yet. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:04:49, 7 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dylan Malyasov
Dylan Malyasov (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

20:53:36, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Arunudoy
I couldn't understand why the submission was declined as the reviewer said, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." The Draft was created all 'Third Party' sources, picking from scholar.google.com and journals, books. The references were mentioned. The Draft may be a "Stub" but can't be an ARTSPAM i.e. an advertisement. Couldn't understand the logic behind calling it as an 'advertisement'.

20:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

22:38:08, 7 April 2019 review of submission by TundraGreen
I recently had a page rejected. But my question is not really about that particular page, but rather about the general criteria for accepting pages. I spend a lot of time looking at random articles in Wikipedia. A large fraction of the pages I hit are obscure (in my opinion) sports figures. The criteria for sports figures specify only that they played in at least one game in a major league of some sport. Meanwhile the criteria for academics has a list of potential criteria that restrict pages to only a few of the most outstanding academics. I will close this comment with a statement that clearly reveals my bias: I think Wikipedia, and our society in general, pays way too much attention to sports and entertainment figures in comparison to the attention we give to doctors, scientists, and others who are making a real contribution to the world. TundraGreen (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Good day. I could understand your sentiment and thoughts; however, for a sportsman to play in a major league is not small achievement as compare to millions of their peers who fails to get that recognition and that is same for scholars/academics. In Wikipedia the subject needs to be notable that has gained significant attention (sources)  "by the world at large" and over a period of time to merit a page in Wikipedia. It is true that sportsperson and entertainers are the interested subjects in  "mainstream"  news as they are considered exciting/fascinating topics by most ppl, and in contrast many scholars and academics do not receive such attention by ppl to have any articles/sources to talk about them in general. We do accept articles of scholars/academics who do not meet the criteria if their work have been cited significance amount of times by others (info from google scholar citation) or their work has significant influence in their fields. Cheers and thank you for your contribution. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand that Wikipedia reflects the world we live in, I don't particularly like some aspects of the world we live in, but I can see your point. TundraGreen (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I understand where you coming from for a person who loves rocks and numbers (a geophysicist and mathematician). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So a baseball player whose claim to fame is playing in four innings over two games (Frank Rosso) is more notable than a full professor with numerous published OpEd pieces, and leading role in the discussion of the affect of language on reception in the world. I hope you are having fun, I am. TundraGreen (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I think you have misunderstand my message above. I apologies for my short message and did not illustrate my point in details. It was not meant to be put down (I almost change my major to geology on sophomore year in college as I was fascinating with the subject) but agree with your sentiment and understand your position. Personally, I do wish to see more Wikipedia articles about academics/scholars. Hope this clear up the misunderstanding. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

23:06:55, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Vwang2014
How do you edit an infobox that has been submitted to Articles for creation? I want to insert a photo. Vwang2014 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Good day. First of all you need to make sure the image/photo you upload need to be adhere to Image use policy and do read Uploading images for info. Go to HERE to upload the image. See below the summarise version of the above.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * copyright - if the photo is not in the public domain, or under a free license such as GNU Free Documentation License or CC BY/BY-SA), fair use or Freely licensed, then the photo can NOT be allowed to uploaded to Wikipedia except if you are the copyright holder (the photographer) or photograph which you have taken  of a image (statues/building/art) which is over 150 years old.
 * image format - prefer npg or jpg format
 * upload to Wikimedia - HERE
 * release copyright for anyone to use the image - you need to declare to give non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) for anyone to use your image (in the upload image "release right section" as per item 3 above.
 * Once the upload is done, then insert the image naming on to the infobox image line item.