Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 26

= June 26 =

02:56:26, 26 June 2020 review of submission by 76.165.129.221
Hello, an admin named Sam-2727 was the last admin to review this article. In his final response, which took several weeks of his careful study of the piece, initially he was going to judge that it should be completely rejected (it had already several declines). However, Sam-272 later reversed his opinion and decided Wikipedia should reconsider this article. Of course it is not possible remove the "rejected" marking, this being permanent, but it no longer apparently reflects the current status of the article--at least according to Sam-2727. There may be admins who disagree. Thus, although the article covers a notable and neutral topic, some admins may still find that the piece cannot be sufficiently backed by secondary sources for every theory and assertion that it contains.

However, as I demonstrated to Sam-2727, all except one of the theories presented are backed by secondary sources other than myself. And that one theory, though it is not itself reviewed elsewhere (the one by Sheila Murnaghan), is neutrally written by that author, who is a prestigious classical scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. All of the other theories accounted for in my article are included as mentioned by a third party, another writer other than myself. Thus, they are all, actually attributed to reliable secondary sources. I have no problem with considering those specific theories as primary sources, even though they all are directed at the one most primary source that the article is about, namely chapters 13 and 14 of Aristotle's Poetics. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there are many Wikipedia articles that are less compliant with the rules of Wikipedia than this one, that I have written.

I have incorporated all the changes that Sam-2727 suggested, which should bring the article up to par in response to previous admin's criticisms. Sam-2727 has also stated that the article was already neutrally written, neutrality was not the problem. Specifically, the last edit I made was to correct those statements included in theories in the article that lacked a name or scholar to which they are attributed. Now all those factual statements are attributed to the appropriate individual who authored the respective theory. Due to the fact that in previous submissions I did not know what changes to make, because admins held me out to dry without knowing what to do, the article was declined several times, when I kept making what I thought were good changes and resubmitting. Then finally Sam-2727 was able to tell me the much-needed specific edits.76.165.129.221 (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

08:52:14, 26 June 2020 review of draft by SinghPurnima72
I need help in improving the article and making it better for review. Please suggest any changes and make edits to the article if you want. This is my first article and that's why I need the editor's help And if it is good for review then please mention it so that I can make necessary improvements recommended by you.
 * Please tell me about the improvements or please review the draft if it is correct

SinghPurnima72 (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

09:45:43, 26 June 2020 review of submission by Parkashjit Singh
Parkashjit Singh (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Your draft offers no independent reliable sources to support its content.  Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone; an article about a person should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

10:08:56, 26 June 2020 review of draft by Kferreir
I am not sure how including more references would improve this article. The article is about a University and it mainly uses the University's website for information. I doubt that any other reference is more adequate to describe a University's history and curricula than the University itself.

In addition, the quantity of external references is scarce. The University does not conduct research and its civic intervention is minimal. Hence, it does not appear in newspapers or specialized magazines, or any other independent publications. Furthermore, the University is run by a Foundation which, as a receiver of public funding, is ruled by strict regulations under the Italian law, which further dampens their outreach (which could lead to further sources).

I do not see how any of these facts, or their ensemble, weakens the justification for the existence of a wikipedia entry for this University. Therefore, if possible, I would appreciate a clarification on what precisely can be done to improve this draft.

Thanks.

Kferreir (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization considers to be its own history. Wikipedia articles should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. If it does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time.  Not every organization merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field.  It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback with the clarification. I apologize for insisting, but your comment seems to be at odds with the common practice regarding small/medium Universities. In the category of Universities in Italy alone, please see the non-exhaustive list of (accepted) Wikipedia articles containing no references other than the universities' own website:

Marche Polytechnic University, Aosta Valley University, Libera Università Mediterranea, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, University of Sannio, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Magna Græcia University, Italian Institute of Human Sciences (SUM), IULM University of Milan - a "sister" University of the Carlo Bo Institute, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Scuola Superiore Studi Pavia IUSS, Foro Italico University of Rome, International University of Rome, University of Rome Unitelma Sapienza, Università per Stranieri di Siena, University of Eastern Piedmont, Tuscia University. It begs the questions: why have these articles been accepted if "Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization considers to be its own history"? Why are there no visible warnings alerting readers to the fact that these articles violate what Wikipedia is interested in?

To be clear, I will add an independent reference to the draft, in accordance to your request. Notwithstanding, I think that on the basis of precedence alone your request does not justify the rejection of the draft. Hence, I can't help but suspect a secondary hidden reason for the rejection, or its arbitrariness. Either way, I do not think that it is on Wikipedia's interest to have that sort of relation with its editors.

Thanks again.

12:07:50, 26 June 2020 review of submission by Muddhineni
Muddhineni (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 10:46, 26 June 2020 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page Draft:Dr. Muddhineni Venkata Ramana (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:COI, WP:RS WP:Notability (people)). Wikipedia doesn't allow promotion or "spreading the word" about something. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

13:34:13, 26 June 2020 review of submission by Ali.shaila
Ali.shaila (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone shed light on how this page got qualified to be published on wikipedia? I'll be nominating this for deletion soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_on_Family_Relations
 * This would be a better question for the general Help Desk, this one is oriented towards helping users with their drafts. However, to answer you; it is possible for inappropriate articles to get past us.  This is a volunteer project, and we can only address what we know about.  From what I see I would tend to agree with you that a deletion nomination may be warranted, as it is sourced to little other than the organization itself. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt reply. However, my philosophy differs yours. When you said "it is possible for inappropriate articles to get past us" This statement defeats the purpose of any work. If we are unable to give our 100% to what ever we are doing then it is worth not doing it because in this situation we minimize the effort and the hard work the person on the other side has made. I hope you will strive toward excellence in the future and don't cut your self too thin.


 * It is very easy to criticise. It is more useful to take action. I just examined National Council on Family Relations, noted that I would not have accepted it as a draft, made some edits to separate the obvious primary sources out, and flagged it for substantial improvement. You can do this too.
 * As a stub article it may have a place. Or it could be nominated for a deletion discussion.
 * Thank you for noticing it. Fiddle   Faddle  14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Until Wikipedia has a paid staff that can monitor every edit on Wikipedia 24 hours a day seven days a week 365 days a year, some stuff is going to get past the volunteers that participate here. It's not for lack of trying or for incompetence, its just the way it is when people are here in their spare time. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

17:11:40, 26 June 2020 review of submission by VYSHNA P
VYSHNA P (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)