Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 6

= November 6 =

01:50:19, 6 November 2022 review of submission by I do care about
I do care about (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @I do care about: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

19:09:32, 6 November 2022 review of submission by Cbazerman
{{Lafc|username= Cbazerman|ts=19:09:32, 6 November 2022|link=

On October 30 I requested help on help in improving notability of my article on Carolyn Rae Miller. Notability was given as the reason it was declined despite many independent, reliable sources attesting as to the groundbreaking, fundamental importance of her work, including whole sections of journals and other articles devoted to discussing her work as well as awards and other markers. I received only one brief comment about ISBN's which I have added. I have received no other substantive help, and now the comment seems to have been removed from the queue (timed out?), I could add long quotations from important people in the field supporting her notability, but that would seem to imbalance the article. i have placed them in the unsubmitted draft. Should i submit that revised draft or do you have other suggestions?

I am also pasting below for your reference my response on the reviewer Jamiebuba, for which I have also not received a response (also note my username is cbazerman, not methodical, which I abandoned when I found someone else using that name:

I thank you for the quick review of the article on Carolyn Miller, but I am a bit puzzled about why you have rejected it on the grounds of notability. I had reviewed the notability criteria rather carefully, and I have included more than a few independent sources indicating her notability. Among them were her named chair, her multiple awards by the top professional societies in her field, including a lifetime achievement award. Beyond the independent cited comments in other articles that attested to the groundbreaking and foundational work of her articles were the multiple translations and reprints of her articles, and even more were the special sections devoted to discussing her article "Genre as Social Action" in two journals as well as an article analyzing the influence of her "Humanistic Rationale" article. These are far more than passing mentions. They are whole articles and sections of journals. In her field there is no more substantial site of discussion and recognition. Her "Genre as Social Action" is the most cited in the major journal it appears in and her ":Humanistic Rationale" is the most cited article in her field of technical communication, Three of her  articles have been discussed as among essential works in her field. All these items and more have been documented in the Wikipedia submission. I am not sure what else you might be looking for. Methodical 01:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbazerman (talk • contribs)  Methodical 18:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I posted on note on Cbazerman's talk page with some suggestions. S0091 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

21:07:07, 6 November 2022 review of submission by Mocha c jp
Please indicate where it violates the wikipedia rules.

Mocha c jp (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is VERY poorly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it reads like something a vendor would give to a company as a sales pitch. Your audience is Joe Blow from San Antonio, not C-suites. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)