Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 August 25

= August 25 =

02:00:46, 25 August 2020 review of submission by NimmaPawanprs
NimmaPawanprs (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , your submission was rejected and tagged for deletion as WP:SPAM. You appear to have a undeclared COI as well. Eternal Shadow   Talk  03:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well... got themselves indeffed... Eternal Shadow   Talk  02:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

04:52:33, 25 August 2020 review of submission by Contributers2020
I want to know that whenever a write an article, it gets declined. Despite taking all citations and all references as I can which is available publicly, it always gets declined. This is very wrong on the user. I think if this happens, in 100% of articles, only 2% gets selected. My article, despite having all information I have, was rejected 8 times. Please resolve this issue and accept my article as soon as possible. This Article is mine.

Contributers2020 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article contains no reliable sources. There is no indication that the subject of the article is notable enough for an encyclopedia article here. -- Kinu t/c 05:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

05:30:05, 25 August 2020 review of submission by Vanos777
I am an independent article writer with no COI. The biographical article in question has been said to read like a promotion; however, I fashioned it in the likeness of many other articles that I read prior to drafting - namely Dan Bongino’s page for example. This biography does have independent sourcing as corporations are “people” in the United States, and the corporation known as Arlumen Health is an actual Heath system in Texas. Therefore, its webpage is independent of the CEO due to the fact that a corporation would not publish about a person who was not its CEO as if they were. Furthermore, this article references the nationally notable organization Future Physicians of America, which is one of the country’s largest pipeline organizations for premedical and medical student going into the medical profession. The reviewer is mistaken by his own bias of hunting for promotional materials, so much so he has made a fundamental attribution error in assuming that organizations and companies are not independent of their employees. The Texas Tech article also independently verified that this individual did graduate there and was the number one graduate of his class. Yes, some of the minor articles are harder to connect, but the individual known in Texas as “Mac Ewart” is very notable, as proven by an entire corporation and one of the medical community’s largest organizations. I strongly believe this article needs to be published. Vanos777 (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There are several problems with Draft:Mac Ewart.
 * Several of the cited references, specifically those from Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. (#5), Rutledge Cancer Foundation (#6), Observatorio Venezolano De La Salud (#7), McLennan Co. Mosquito Project (#8), and  National Cancer Institute (#9) do not even mention Ewart's name. These are surely not "significant coverage" of Ewart. In some cases the web pages cited are general, if there is discussion of Ewart on deeper pages the link should be to the specific page where he or his work is discussed. If his work is discussed, he should at elast be named, or there must be some way for the reader to verify that it is in fact his work.
 * Organizations with which Ewart was associated, such as Arlumen Health and Future Physicians. are not independent sources This includes any of his current or former employers, and and organization that sponsored his work, or which he founded or helped organize. Nothing from such a source counts towards notability. Independent coverage, that is about Future Physicians., from sources in no way associated with him, that have nothing to gain by promoting him, and are not based primarily on his statements (as interviews are) are needed. There seem to be none in the current draft, and there should be at least three.
 * Statements such as are of limited relevance to his reasons for notability, and are ratehr promotional.
 * The entire "Entrepreneurship" section is promotional in tone, and supported only by closely assoiciated sources, it seems. An organization's self-proclaimed mission interments is rarely encylopedic, unless independent sources quote or refer to it. Phrases such as do not belong in a Wikipedia article except possibly as part of a quotation, proiperly attributed and cited, from an independent person, and even then might be dubious.
 * In reference citations, please only wiki-link sources if an article about the source already exists.
 * Please understand that on Wikipedia "promotion is not limited to commercial advertising, but includes anything intended to promote or praise an individual or organization, or bring it to wider notice, rather than to summarize what independent reliable sources have already published about it. Wikipedia articles should never include judgements of value or opinions in the editorial voice, only ones directly attributes to named and cited sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear, thank you for your guidance on this and my stated position. I need to do a better job with the links. Would you be willing to work on some other form of chat besides Wikipedia? If not, I understand. I have questions about how to cite institutionally-protected journals and medical/academic findings: 1) How do we cite information printed and/or presented without internet publication? For example, Ewart presented wrote Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. (#5) Note: I will work to find the print-only title of this work, was sponsored by Rutledge Cancer Foundation (#6) Note: I will find the deeper source, contributed to the data of the Observatorio Venezolano De La Salud (#7) Note: I am having trouble on this one due to the government of Venezuela’s malevolent nature towards scientific freedom currently, wrote the entire for scientific presentation only McLennan Co. Mosquito Project (#8) Note: this was scientific presentation-only also, and is cited deeper into  National Cancer Institute (#9).

How do we prove print-only, or presentation-only works on Wikipedia? They no doubt carry more influence over Texas’s regional epidemiology and medical communities than other sources external to the State.

Lastly, I will continue to follow the works of Ewart, as I have come to knowledge of his notoriety regionally via Adolescent Young Adult Conferences, Galas, and other scientific presentations of which I personally attend for these reasons.

My personal goal is to ensure that this encyclopedia does not lose-out on the contributions of regional individuals, companies, and organizations specifically from the State of Texas, USA. I would appreciate guidance, as I am just beginning this journey!

To expand on this, I believe there needs to be articles for Arlumen Health, and the Future Physicians of America organization. However, now I am cautious to even attempt. There is also a vacant space concerning Venezuela’s epidemiology findings and organizations. Tropical Medicine of Venezuela and Texas share much information! Therefore, there are no in-wiki citations available due to these large gaps and lapses of information in knowledge found in Wikipedia. I am passionate to not let a dictatorship exclude the science of an entire nation and its relationships with the USA/Texas go undocumented. How do I proceed with such a large task?

Again, if you’re willing, I would love to have some Wikipedia mentorship throughout this task.

Thank you kindly for the time an thought you provided in your response! Vanos777 (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do Wikipedia work on Wikipedia only, in part for transparency. I have in the past done detailed collaboration over Wikipedia talk pages, and it can work well. Draft talk:Mac_Ewart would be a possible place to hold such discussions. To answer your specific questions:
 * Print sources are cited much like online ones, but without a URL. You may use cite book for books, cite journal for scholarly journals, cite news for newspapers, cite magazine for print publications that are neither books nor journals nor newspapers. Provide the title, author (when known), date of publication, name of the publication, name of publisher (when relevant), ISBN or ISSN when known, page number, and DOI or other identifier when available. In general there should be enough info to find the source in a library. You can also use the quote parameter to provide a short quotation from the source in place of being able to read the source online. As long as the source is published, and could be found and checked with some effort, there is no need to "prove" the content of the source. See also WP:RX.
 * A for possible new article on Arlumen Health, and the Future Physicians of America, please read WP:NORG. Again independent reliable published sources that discuss the organization is some detail would be needed. Sources need not be online, or in English.
 * Is that helpful? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

07:37:54, 25 August 2020 review of submission by LucyNakahara
hello I am requesting some advise on this article. why do you think this article is not good?

LucyNakahara (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You were given the reasons the draft was rejected; do you have questions about those reasons? 331dot (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

08:19:57, 25 August 2020 review of draft by Motizin
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

A reviewer has rejected my submission of Disagreements (Epistemology). The claim is that that the page is essay-like and no encyclopedic. I firmly disagree. I was very careful not to include any "original" content. What I included is just an exposition of existing issue in epistemology literature. Any philosophical issue may look like an essay. Examples: Internalism and externalism, Justification (epistemology), Philosophical skepticism,Bayesian probability and many others. It seems that the reviewer is not familiar with philosophical content. I request that my submission will be reviewed again by a reviewer with the necessary background like a person from the Philosophy workgroup. Motizin (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it reads like an essay, I don't need to have a philosophy background to see that. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If specific editors or someone from a specific field needs to be the one to review your draft, there's something wrong with it. Articles need to be accessible to all, as they can be edited by anyone, not just people who are knowledgeable about a field. It's also good for outside eyes to see the subject. In addition, the group you speak of is not necessarily large and may not have many users who volunteer to review drafts.  331dot (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a naïve approach. There are many articles in math, physics, chemistry, etc. that are not accessible to the general user and you won't expect that a "general user" will review, accept or reject them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motizin (talk • contribs) 10:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * {{u|Motizin}} That's exactly what Wikipedia expects. Please see WP:EXPERT for guidance for editors who are experts in a particular field. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi {{U|Motizin}}. Do not be discouraged by one decline. Most Wikipedia articles, including the four examples you give above, are rated less than "good" by the community. Confirmation bias and Philosophy of mind are much better examples of how to write about philosophy for Wikipedia. You may be able to get ideas from them, from the initial review and comments above, or from colleagues at WikiProject Philosophy/Epistemology, on how to change the tone of the draft.
 * If you resubmit the draft, you may encourage {{U|Chenzw}} or {{U|Sulfurboy}}, reviewers who self-identify as having moderate expertise in philosophy, to review it, but in the end it may be reviewed by any experienced Wikipedian. As an autoconfirmed editor, Articles for Creation is an optional process for you. You may move the draft to article space yourself if you don't believe it is benefiting from AfC's review-revise cycle. At worst, the page might be deleted there. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for tagging me, and thank you {{U|Motizin}} for your work on the draft. The issue of disagreements (also called "peer disagreement", which may be a better choice of title, given how it's mentioned as such in Social epistemology) is indeed a discussed problem in epistemology. I am not seeing any primary research in this draft, though I suspect the draft appeared to read like an essay due to the diction and tone of the article (the lede in particular). I will leave a few additional comments in the draft. Please look for me on my home wiki if I do not manage to get back to you in a timely manner. Chenzw  Talk   16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

11:53:41, 25 August 2020 review of submission by Jediwriter1975
The comment was that this is "essentially(sic) a press release", though I followed the article format and wording for other similar business figures, such as Tony Robbins. I'm happy to make changes to better comply with the guidelines...I just need to know what I did wrong specifically. All copy was drawn from content within the approved news/magazine articles. Thanks for your help! Chip Jediwriter1975 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It was rejected because it was loaded with promotional/embellishing language like "In January of 1995, he joined Dale Carnegie, a leader in professional training programs"; "During his stint with Dale Carnegie, Tyson got his foot in the door with sales coaching for professional sports teams when he offered his services to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for game tickets. That small move was about to pay off in a big way."  The sources you gave seem to all be based on interviews with him.  Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves or their own work.  Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how they meet(in this case) the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
 * I noticed that Mr. Tyson is the only subject you have edited about. Do you have a connection with him? 331dot (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

11:56:43, 25 August 2020 review of submission by Userths
I am new in wikipedia. I created the draft and submitted. But it was declined and I was told that I had to add more citations. I have added 7 references and resubmitted it. Can you help about publishing the article. Userths (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have resubmitted it, it will be reviewed in due course; please be patient. I notice that the draft does little more than tell of the existence of the college and what it does; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the subject(in this case an organization) meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The sources you have offered do not seem to be such sources. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

12:22:09, 25 August 2020 review of draft by Martin1094
I have tried to sujbmit this article fopr review, but I can;t tell whether I have been successful as it keeps returning me to a page which says the article is not yet submitted for review.Martin1094 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Martin1094 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have submitted it for review. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have submitted the draft on your behalf. While you are waiting for review, please have a look at WP:REFB on fomatting the refs, and it would also be nice if you would add some internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: that wasn't me, that was I.)

13:25:03, 25 August 2020 review of submission by 50.250.100.49
This is a very important cultural institution in our community that has stood up for LGBTQ in a right wing neighborhood. They also support artists in a culturally devoid neighborhood and fought for a female muralist to paint the first grafitti mural in Boca. This places is not a museum but there is art everywhere inside and it means a lot to a lot of people here and deserves to be on Wikipedia. It is important to our community and a safe haven for marginalized people. Lee gives out interest free loans to the poor, his family is so generous and they deserve to be noted on Wikepedia. I am not a pro so maybe I wrote things wrong but they deserve to be here way more than other people that are on here.

50.250.100.49 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the puffery was already pointed out by . Do you have a WP:COI with this? Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's good that you want to tell the world about the good work this organization does- but that's not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:NOBLE. Social media would be better suited to that. The only concern with regards to who "deserves" an article is if it meets the notability criteria, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on 13:56:22, 25 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Pruthiviraj Nahak
Pruthiviraj Nahak (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization; a Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You only cite the Trust's website, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

15:40:32, 25 August 2020 review of draft by Pandey Family
I need help because I created a page on "Stranger than Fiction (TV Series)" with only on reference. I did a lot of research, but could only found info on IMDb. I request you to please do some more intensive research and cite sources. And it's my first attempt of creating an article, so I am just a beginner. The rules are quite confusing and too technical for me to understand. Well, I would to urge the respective user and Wikipedia to pass my article, rest is your decision on the basis of rules and guidelines. Pandey Family (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are writing a draft, it is up to you to make it meet standards for sources and notability. There is no deadline for this, feel free to take all the time you need to learn about Wikipedia first. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

17:44:17, 25 August 2020 review of draft by Justin Crow Asuka
Hello, i have created a Wikipedia page for Denis Zhivotovsky from the band Amatory on the occasion of his birthday on August 28. I know that the verification takes a long time but if someone has a possibility to verify and publish it before August 28, i kindly ask you to help me. Sincerely, Justin Crow Asuka (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Justin Crow Asuka

Justin Crow Asuka (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should we do that? There are submissions that have been waiting for 2 months already. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! For me a birthday is a good enough reason to hope for a miracle, at least I have tried :-) Thank you for your quick response! Sincerely, Justin Crow Asuka (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Justin Crow Asuka
 * I have a question about the article - the majority of the facts about this musician are coming from the book about the band, is it correctly to put a reference to the book (page 2, page 19, page 77 etc.) more than 3-5 times in one article? Sincerely, Justin Crow Asuka (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Justin Crow Asuka
 * you can use named references for that. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! Kind regards, Justin Crow Asuka (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Justin Crow Asuka

19:31:00, 25 August 2020 review of submission by Thespiansapien
Hi. Please help. I received feedback from a reviewer who was unclear how Chido is a notable actor. He is a series regular on a major network television show and also had a recurring role in other major network television shows. He also has a large following on his social media and many interviews and appearances that I linked in external links. My confusion lies within the fact that on the show series wiki, Sistas, many actors that have wikipedia pages have less film and tv credits and little to no citations, yet their articles were still approved. I also noticed an actor wiki with "This article about an American actor or actress is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Should I include in this article? Can you give me advice on what else I need to include or is this a lost cause? Thanks!

Thespiansapien (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the references do not indicates that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Eternal Shadow   Talk  20:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)