Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 10

= March 10 =

Request on 00:15:00, 10 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by SageMacG
Hello, I'm an brand-new user so I apologize in advance for being unfamiliar with the methods and systems here. I really appreciate the thorough vetting and dedication to good data, and value the time volunteers put into this platform.

I just had my first article rejected, so I carefully read the critique so I could make the article comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the critique applies to my article. The critique was "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." To address the latter first, all my sources were independent, reliable, published sources and the only material produced by the subject is the 'official site' link in the External links section. To address the former, I believe the only area that reads like an advertisement is "Reviews and Commentary" all of which are independent sources. I've seen other artists pages use this same technique, (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kelly_(artist)) but I am happy to delete that section if it will make the page publishable.

It would be really helpful if someone could point out specifics of how the content doesn't meet the guidelines. In terms of notability, is there a place I can supply evidence that would be out of place on the actual wikipedia entry?

Thank you so much in advance to anyone who is willing to volunteer their time to help me with this. I'm really trying to do this fairly in spite of my stated COI.

Thank you! SageMacG (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

SageMacG (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 01:13:13, 10 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by NooYawkah
DGG's comment on declining this article is deeply puzzling. "This is essentially a promotional press release. DGG ( talk )"

First, I question the truthfulness of this statement -- a promotional press release is usually full of superlatives, but the only superlative in this article refers to something else.

Second, there's no such discouragement at the "Five pillars" page. Is DGG enforcing an ascertainable standard or letting his personal taste run wild?

Third, and most to the point, why would an encyclopedia article on a legal scholar discuss anything other than what's on this page? Shouldn't an article explain both the scholar's publications and the effect those publications have had on the field? What could possibly be more relevant? An encyclopedia entry for a legal scholar all but necessarily lists publications -- Frederick_M._Abbott Jody Armour Is DGG asking that the article be loaded down with trivialities?

Fourth, note the history -- Dan arndt challenged on grounds that "requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary source". The current draft of the article responds to Mr. Arndt's request for "multiple independent reliable secondary sources". Why should the article be penalized for attempting to meet Mr. Arndt's concerns?

Fifth, DGG writes on my talk page, "This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG" There's no room for DGG's hostility in response to a good faith effort to develop an article that contains the facts that would be most relevant to a reader who's involved in the law. Please remonstrate with Mr. DGG.

Please either approve the article or offer a constructive suggestion.

NooYawkah (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An article about a legal scholar or any person should summarize what independent reliable sources state about that person themselves, not just what they do. You've written a summary of what Mr. Boundy does, largely cited to his own publications(which are not independent sources) or other sources that only describe his actions.  331dot (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is "David Boundy is a patent attorney in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts." That's what's relevant to readers, true?


 * In almost cases, a person is notable because of what he/she does. Athletes' articles describe their participation at Olympic games, etc.  The person's height, skin tone, etc are entirely irrelevant.  Isn't that correct?


 * I am puzzled at 331dot's statement "cited to his own publications(which are not independent sources)". A publisher's choice of what to publish is an independent evaluation.   A good list of publication venues that includes the prominent publishers in a field is one of the best credentials a scholar in any area has.  Take a look at the Abbott and Armour articles I cited above.


 * In addition to listing Mr. Boundy's publications, I footnoted to a number of unrelated sources that describe Mr. Boundy's activities and the effects they've had on the system. Please offer a constructive suggestion -- are you saying I should cut the list of articles, and leave only the sentences footnoted to observations of others?  If that's the suggestion, it's contrary to what any legal academic would consider most relevant (publish or perish -- we care about each other's publications first and foremost!) and thoroughly irrational in my world, but if it's the suggestion that works in your world, and you'll approve the article if I carry out your suggestion, I can do that.


 * If 331dot's characterization is an accurate statement of what Wikipedia aspires to, then the review standards are irrational, this exercise is pointless and I give up. Please delete the article.


 * NooYawkah (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To request that the draft be deleted, blank it, or paste the code  near the top. An administrator will act on your request shortly thereafter. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Worldbruce -- is 331dot's evaluation correct? I think it proceeds from complete misunderstanding of what happens in academic publishing, and is fundamentally irrational.  If 331dot is accurate, then please confirm, and I will give up and delete the article.  If I have raised questions whether 331dot's and DDG's evaluation criteria are useful, then let's evaluate the article under rational criteria that apply to legal scholars, get the article into proper condition, and publish it.  Thank you. NooYawkah (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A publisher's choice in what to publish is not enough to base an article on; Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent sources with significant coverage state about someone. Merely publishing a person's works is not significant coverage of the author or scholar.  For example, Henry Ford merits an article because others not associated with Henry Ford have chosen to write about him and his effects on manufacturing in general and Ford Motor Company in particular. If others have chosen to write about what Mr. Boundy has published and how it has affected his chosen field or something else, that's what the article should summarize.  If you are used to academic or scholarly publishing, there is a definite learning curve in editing Wikipedia, which has a different audience(lay people) and different goals. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different and requires adaptation. If you are interested, you may wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That discussion by third parties is in there, and footnoted at some length (see footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and accompanying text). Are you suggesting keep those references, and cut the publication list (footnotes 6-14, and accompanying text)?  Even though those publications are what led those third parties to write or act as they did?


 * Can I observe that advancing industrialist Henry Ford as the standard against which you compare a legal scholar demonstrates the flaws in the decision-making process? If that's the standard, how did the number of biographical articles get above 1000 or so? I suggest that more-useful analogies are Abbott and Armour.  If those models are not more-appropriate analogies, can you please explain why?


 * I am trying mightily to meet whatever objections you have. The responses I get from you and others are constantly shifting, based on no written principles, and based on extreme analogies.  Is that the way things work here consistently?  If you are tying to act in good faith the way I am, can you please offer advice on solving the problem you perceive?  Please tell me what you want, and when I ask a specific question looking for guidance, please answer it.  Thank you


 * NooYawkah (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what I want. This is about what guidelines call for. To answer your first paragraph, yes. Wikipedia wants to know what others state. I was simply trying to draw an analogy to be helpful, not saying others need to be equivalent in stature to Ford. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do my best to give answers, but the answer is not always as clear as what I or you might want. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

03:37:51, 10 March 2020 review of draft by 82.10.37.178
82.10.37.178 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to add a article on it but can't seem to get it accept
 * The topic is not notable, so Wikipedia should not have an article about it. You may find WP:BFAQ informative. The encyclopedia is not for any kind of advertising, publicity, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 06:35:01, 10 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hotgums
I need to know what did I do wrongly..?

Hotgums (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have removed your draft from this page, as it is linked to above and so a copy here is unnecessary. You were told why your draft was declined, is there something about it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there is ok I went to chat on help and they have given me some tips... thanks for the reply

14:08:44, 10 March 2020 review of submission by Epicgames2.0
Epicgames2.0 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

18:45:31, 10 March 2020 review of draft by Spacebarn
I'm confused as to why this was rejected for lacking context. I linked to other wikipedia articles, where relevant. As an example of another element with roughly the same context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhododendrin. Granted, this one has a diagram of the chemical structure/IUPAC name, etc. -- I think this one could if given proper attention, but it is very obscure. Spacebarn (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for seeking to improve Wikipedia's coverage of enzymes. There are many of them. Sometimes there isn't much to say about each one, and they are better covered in an article about a family of enzymes, in a list, in a paragraph about their only known use, or elsewhere, instead of in a stand alone article. Nomenclature has changed in the hundred-plus years since your cited source was published, so it's also possible that the encyclopedia already covers the topic under a different name.
 * It would be easier to convince reviewers that the topic merits a stand alone article if you added more context. What family of enzymes is it in? Where does it fall on List of enzymes? In addition to what it links to, what articles would link to it? You say it is very obscure, but can you find two additional reliable sources (preferably at least one of which would be considerably more recent)? It also would help your case if you expanded the draft. You may be able to get more targeted advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)