Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 27

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< February 26 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 28 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


February 27 edit

00:21:14, 27 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite edit


Hi, This is a summary to address all the comments about requirements needed to get my article Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging published, including the important General Notability Guidelines criteria to meet notability, as discussed by @NovemLinguae. I will work to vastly re-write the article to make it acceptable in the ways outlined below. Please let me know, have I have missed any important re-write guidelines so I can do a good job and the next submission for review will end in publishing?!

The reviewer Bkissin had originally said that in the draft submission “references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article that is, they do not show significant coverage…about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent.” However this reviewer on the help desk page later conceded that the issues with the article were more to do with it being original research.

In dealing with this issue I will refer to the article meeting General Notability Guidelines criteria to meet notability, as later discussed by @NovemLinguae . Novem Linguae said for General Notability Guidelines it would help if I could provide 3 reference sources from the article that use the exact term Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and have a few paragraphs of content about this subject. Now the concept of the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog is used in the sources but it is hard to find a source that coins the exact term “Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. " For example, the sources may discuss the concept or the actual manifestation of an anonymous blog with personal writing including about sex. I have listed below 7 sources used in my article that do provide a meeting of notability guidelines. It becomes plainly evident in reading these 7 listed secondary sources, four academic journals and three published books, that they are studying, as part or all of their study focus, blogs that are either all anonymous or some are anonymous and are personal, including ones all about sex or about sex and other subjects. Formality of this ruling could be furthered by considering under Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines because the subject is in the field of computer and Internet studies and further specifically anonymous personal sex blogging is a new Internet phenomenon emerging in the 2000s, then there is not 100s of years of notable research; then possibly the subject needs different criteria in considering notability. A further point is, I had submitted the draft to the reviewer with the title “Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging”, i.e. the act of creating blogs. However someone or possibly the “magic of wiki A.I.” had made the decision to revert the draft to one with an earlier title of “Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. " In studying the subject carefully as I did, one will notice that there is far more research about the act of blogging in this specific way than about the actual self-contained Anonymous Personal Sex Blogs. This is because there is much blogging done on social media platforms such as Twitter, and on date sites where the blogging occurs not on a blog but on a platform for blogging or computer communication. I think that using either title, the criteria for notability is met but there are more sources for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging compared to for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. A case in point is: Lloyd, C.E.M., Finn, M.D. (2017). Authenticity, validation and sexualisation on Grindr: An analysis of trans women’s accounts. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1-2), 158-169. doi: 10.1080 / 19419899.2017.1316769, which is a source for Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging rather than for Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. I provide this example because there seemed to be some question about whether there were three notability sources so, every example for the case may help. I have listed 7 further examples of sources for this notability criteria, (for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog title), as follows, and I can easily provide more, out of the 70 references, if it comes to that, and if there is still a question of the very existence of the article on wiki):

• Attwood, F. (2009). Intimate adventures: Sex blogs, sexblooks' and women's sexual narration. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 5-20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240691173_Intimate_adventuresSex_blogs_sex_blooks'_and_women's_sexual_narration •* Cardell, K. (2014). Dear World: Contemporary uses of the Diary. University of Wisconsin Press.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=TX7VBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=Everyday+Authenticity:+Contemporary+Uses+of+the+Diary+Kylie+Cardell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV9vainLDuAhWyFzQIHZwDDfkQ6wEwAHoECAEQBA#v=onepage&q=Everyday%20Authenticity%3A%20Contemporary%20Uses%20of%20the%20Diary%20Kylie%20Cardell&f=false


• Farrer, J. (2007). China's Women Sex Bloggers and Dialogic Sexual Politics on the Chinese Internet. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs-China aktuell, 36(4), 10-4

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14455603906827013971&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Dftjio56S0SsJ

• Ferreday, D. (2010). Writing Sex Work Online: The Case of Belle de Jour. Wagadu: a Journal of Transnational and Women's and Gender Studies, 8, 273-292. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/55280/ and at https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=15456196&AN=59523517&h=3wppKEiprwL%2b8%2ftYx7H82c1XrZufJuqUIoLbv3CPhw5svCZFO4SrbCQG7QSVbyAxVLP5EyCztiXpWK5Lp8D3aQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d15456196%26AN%3d59523517


• Tiidenberg, K., Nagel, E. (2020). Sex and Social Media. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/sex-and-social-media


• Wood, E. (2008). Consciousness-Raising 2.0: Sex blogging and the creation of a feminist sex commons. Feminism & Psychology, 18(4), 480-487. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Wood+2008+sex+commons&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DJGDZllexCWYJ

Note the links are from my research data records and are not often in the article references. I cited everything using APA style before I learnt to wiki mark-up the references in to wiki. Now I realise the wiki system seems to favor providing links for all references. Is this necessary? I could probably find links for most of the 70 references if I had to but it would be a lot of work to code them all in. Also because I did not use paywalled databases a lot of my research involved downloading pdfs of journals which then have no link, and then the link is to the database entry or abstract and not to the journal itself. Then technically wiki readers cannot easily access the research from my references. To change this I would basically have to start the research from scratch again, gain access to paywalled sites and write a different article, making futile my months labour to write this complex highly researched article. I hope this is not required. Of course newspapers often do have links and the books have links to Google Books but it is rare, I would have thought to be able to provide a link to a full book with all pages accessible, so for references to books, wiki users are usually not going to get links to specific pages within a book anyway.

Does this meets the criteria for notability for the subject?

Next the reviewer and another reviewer who made comments had mentioned that I should summarise the topic, create a precis, write about it from a neutral point of view and have no original research, use mostly secondary sources, use primary sources only backed up by secondary and a few tertiary sources (eg. Britannica); and not contain opinions; and not draw my own conclusions in summarizing, just report what the secondary sources say.

In writing this way I should write in an encyclopedic style and consider what wiki is intended to be used for, to make my article integrate into the wikipedia general content. I will vastly re-write the entire article to change it from an essay or thesis to a wikipedia entry.

Does this sound acceptable?

Other points also mentioned by others, but not, I do not think by reviewers, are: try to avoid content that is already in wikipedia and use only thumb size pictures. For the pictures, I have read on wiki that larger pictures are allowed, there is discussion on one wiki page about how to upload panaramic large pixel dimension photographs for a nice effect. My photos are a pleasant visual addition to help break up text and I took a lot of effort to find the 7 pictures and photographs which are encyclopedic in character, historical and so lending provenance (a wiki listed quality to have on a wiki article) to the article. The photographs and pictures are all carefully found in archive museum-like collections (none from social media or other questionable online sources), that definitely state the lack of specific copyright restrictions of either CC-BY or PDM. Further the “plates” are works of art in themselves and look good presented in large detailed form and give the article a more impressive book like quality. Then I do not see why I should have to reduce them to meagre thumbs. The case is not a big one and any reviewer can, in a few minutes add the “thumb" code to the wiki mark-up to change the pictures if this is a rule to get the article on wiki. As to the other point about overlap of content with other wiki articles. Wiki is a vast database and I would need a sophisticated algorithm on a mainframe computer to do a thorough search to ensure that every sentence in my article is not a repeat of ideas from another article. Since I do not have this computer capability I am unable to control for this. Further since wiki is being constantly edited then content overlaps must be being continually created and changed, out of anyone’s control. I think this more could be an “editor myth", that you have to cut out all overlapping content? Intuitively when I think of an encyclopedia I think of something that one never reads from cover to cover. If one looks up something in an encyclopedia is it not better to get a comprehensive coverage of the subject, which entails coverage of the basics that may also be written about elsewhere in the encyclopedia. At this point I will assume this is not an issue and will not try to write out potential guessed overlappping content from my article unless a reviewer tells me otherwise.

Please tell me now anything I have missed to ensure that I do a thoroughly job of re-writing the article so it is published, next.

Thank you, Fitwrite.


Fitwrite (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitwrite: Hi there, did you mean to post this to the public AFC Help Desk? I note that in the reviewer comments, Novem Linguae suggested you address this at Draft talk:Anonymous personal sex blog. Also, the above is a lot for anybody to digest. You might consider paring it down to the most relevant points, but that's just my two cents. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are so many difference places to post questions and comments I am always confused at which to use. As long as people get the message and things are dealt with, it seems to me it does not matter too much where it is posted. I did send this message also to Novem linguae's talk page so I am sure they will address it when time. The message is also a general question to get everything in order and when someone can, I would be thankfull if it is answered as I am now already re-writing. Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 05:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Hi, now you brought up the subject and out of curiosity at how messages work. I just went into draft talk for Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and there are no messages there; there were messages to me there earlier today so they must have been deleted, why is this? Anyway this basically means that if I had tried to address this with Novem Lingue in the draft talk for the article there would have been no message there for me to attach my reply to. Then how long would it take for someone to find it? Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Hi, oh also about the suggestion to shorten my question, well the question is complex as writing a wiki article is complex, by definition. The question is necessary to be of that complexity to get the needed answers so to shorten it would only mean my questions would then not be properly answered. There is no deadline obviously and everything is dependent on much appreciated volunteers, so thank you, whenever someone gets to answering the questions. Fitwrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlackholeWA, just fyi: they are already marked for speedy deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:11, 27 February 2021 review of submission by Chris Ash135 edit

I recently created a page to cover my own history, in line with something numerous friends and colleagues appear to have done in the world of elite sport. The article was factual and relatively brief, partly to create some detail to link to another citation in a page about a major international hockey championship where I was awarded a prestigious award. I have since received information saying this article wouldn't be accepted. I am not sure why, and how other almost identical articles seem to exist for other people with very similar backgrounds?

Chris Ash135 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ash135, your article lacks inline citations as mentioned in my comments before, furthermore you need to disclose your Conflict of Interest - see WP:MINREF and [[WP:COI] and WP:NOTYOU. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ash135 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ash135 First, please see the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Your draft has no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article only summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Please review the policies described in the message declining your draft.
Also, note that as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Because of this, other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that those other articles are inappropriate as well. Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:58, 27 February 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:244F:B58C:5990:AF1A edit


Paper.io doesn't have that much notability. That explains why there isn't a lot of references. However it is relatively popular. Note I play this game so these are in my words. This reads like an advertisement, though I wanted to separate everything so it would be easy to understand more. 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:244F:B58C:5990:AF1A (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If the subject does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:06, 27 February 2021 review of draft by Stevenmitchell213 edit


Can someone take a look at [[1]] and see if it is 'ripe' for publication?

Stevenmitchell213 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Stevenmitchell213, please be patient - there are currently more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review, in the worst case it can take up several months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:42, 27 February 2021 review of submission by 174.255.129.84 edit



Hello, why was my article declined? My colleague can write as neutral as possible. Any suggestions? Thanks174.255.129.84 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How neutral can my colleague write about? Any suggestions? So I need to pull out my peer review reesearch articles as a reference for my existence? Thanks Dr. Robb Kelly (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Also do I need to add that I have worked with celebrities? I can name them and Dr. Robb Kelly (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robb Kelly The best thing for you to do is not attempt to write about yourself; while not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. To be successful in doing so, you need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you. You don't need to cite your mere existence, but summarize what independent sources say about you.
Be advised that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robb Kelly (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you wikipedia community for the helpful suggestions! :)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_February_27&oldid=1010338294"