Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 3

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 2 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 4 >
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.


March 3

edit

01:37:11, 3 March 2021 review of draft by 1.136.107.137

edit


1.136.107.137 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account?

I think you want the main Help Desk- but to answer you, accounts cannot be deleted, for technical and legal reasons. If the account is in good standing(i.e. not blocked) a courtesy vanishing may be possible, which randomizes the account name(among other things) but it is not possible to completely remove an account from existence. Most people who no longer wish to participate here simply stop using and abandon their account. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:45, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Warwick789

edit

This page was published before being moved back to drafts because it wasn't using "reliable sources". The text is supported by references to academic papers. I thought that these were adequate sources? What sources should I be citing in order to get this page published? Or does it need more citations? Please can you clarify as I thought I was following the guidelines. Thanks. Warwick789 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick789, I take it you refer to Draft:ReSPECT_process. It feels like a buzzword that may not have wide usage. Also it feels...pretty niche. Or at least not well explained. Our readers are regular folks, not medical experts, and the article doesn't seem to make it clear what this really is. Is this a UK specific thing? Is it really widely used enough to warrant a Wikipedia article? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:28, 3 March 2021 review of draft by Nirmalayadav369

edit


Nirmalayadav369 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalayadav369, You have had no obvious history with this drafted you ask no question. What is your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:06, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Nirmalayadav369

edit


Nirmalayadav369 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalayadav369, Wikipedia is not social media. Please use another site to post your profile. Thsi draft will not be considered further Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:32, 3 March 2021 review of draft by 2409:4042:EA2:6FC2:E19C:81B6:6399:7FB7

edit


2409:4042:EA2:6FC2:E19C:81B6:6399:7FB7 (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwar Kumar is well known music composer and director in Music industry In india. He was composed Songs for well known Movie Rangeela Raja starring by Superstar of Bollywood Govinda As main lead.

But is said to be not a public figure so his profile is not acceptable....

Do the work suggested and you may discover that he passes WP:NMUSIC. Your job is to prove that he does. Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:00:53, 3 March 2021 review of submission by R Ian Bowers

edit


My draft article (Draft:William D. Timberlake) was rejected for a second time (with months delay between each) on the basis that the "submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

Timberlake (i.e. the subject’s proper name) has become a keyword (e.g. [1]), an occasional section heading (e.g. [2]), and has appeared even in multiple titles (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). Bayes, Darwin, Tinbergen and a short list of others have this kind of recognition. The mere fact that his obituary appears in American Psychologist (APA’s centrepiece journal) says that he is considered notable by the leaders of psychology (not everyone gets an obituary in AP). There is a Timberlake entry in Springer’s Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior ([6]), which is not designed as a biographical encyclopedia, and just the especially noteworthy people are included.

The importance of establishing the animal behaviour programme at Indiana University might not be obvious from the short treatment in the article; it changed the landscape of science in a profound and positive way, and sparked similar changes in many other universities. This point has been made elsewhere [7]. This is the sort of influence that doesn’t reflect in citation counts.

Let me also note that the Wikipedia guidelines state that a Festschrift is usually sufficient for establishing notability. Timberlake’s Festschrift [8] revealed a particularly extensive influence, not just among his former students, but even among field leaders. This included 20 (diverse) papers, each focused on how Timberlake influenced psychology.

I suspect many people are looking for Timberlake on Wikipedia and are surprised to not find him represented. I wrote the entry in order to fill that gap.

But a wikipedia article is not meant to be an argument about a person's notability. So how am I to convince the wikipedia editors of Timberlake's notability without turning the article into a sales pitch? I had thought I had been overindulging this pressure by mentioning award highlights and such.

1. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003497 2. Burghardt, G.M. & Bowers, R.I. (2017). From instinct to behavior systems: an integrated approach to ethological psychology. In J. Call et al. (eds.): APA handbook of comparative psychology: Vol 1. Basic concepts, methods, neural substrate, and behavior. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, p. 333-364. 3. Killeen, P.R. (2019). Timberlake’s theories dissolve anomalies. Behavioural Processes 166, 103894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103894. 4. Cabrera, F., Jiménez, Á.A., & Covarrubias, P. (2019). Timberlake’s behavior systems: A paradigm shift toward an ecological approach. Behavioural Processes. 167, 103892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103892. 5. Arnet, E. (2019). William Timberlake: an ethologist’s psychologist. Behavioural Processes 166, 103895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103895. 6. Arnet, E. (2020). William D. Timberlake. In J. Vonk, T. K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_2092-1 7. Arnet, E. (2019). William Timberlake: an ethologist’s psychologist. Behavioural Processes 166, 103895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103895. 8. Special Issue of Behavioural Processes: “Legacy of William Timberlake” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/behavioural-processes/special-issue/10GTX28DGHR) R Ian Bowers (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Ian Bowers, maybe you can try dumping all the sources you have into the talk page of the draft and have someone look at it. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Ian Bowers (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Thanks for the suggestion. The above content is on the talk page now, but how can I get an editor to see/consider it?[reply]

@R Ian Bowers: I have left you some thoughts on the draft's talk page which I hope are helpful. Timberlake certainly has notability (0.95 probability). The discussion is about the verification. The draft talk page is definitely an excellent place to handle this discussion
Also, please do not forget to log in when posting in Wikipedia. Revealing your IP address may affect your personal privacy. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Ian Bowers (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)I appreciate the explanations, but there appears to be some confusion regarding the purpose of the various kinds of citations. I am surprised that my citing Timberlake's own work seems at all odd in an article about him. These do not have the purpose of establishing his notability; none of the citations for this purpose (i.e. those on the talk page) are of his own work, but of others, including veritable field leaders (Domjan, Killeen, Shettleworth). Links to his departments are there when mentioned. I see no unsupported claim in the article.[reply]

During this long process, I now see that someone else has created a wikipedia article for Timberlake. What do you recommend given this?

Hey, R Ian Bowers, you saw my comment and deleted it. I would rather merge instead with the other article if your article gets rejected completely. Did you see my comment before and write this?81.141.191.206 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:26, 3 March 2021 review of submission by AV Humour

edit


AV Humour (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references with proper citation and i believe that I've added enough references for review and publish of an article AV Humour (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AV Humour The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:55, 3 March 2021 review of submission by United World President

edit


United World President (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@United World President: You didn’t ask a question but your draft has been Rejected. This means it will not be considered further. SK2242 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Meenakshi Joshi is a well known Indian journalist. She deserves an article on Wikipedia. I've added all the information with proper citation and I believe that I've added enough references for review and publish of this article. United World President (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United World President, welcome to the Helpdesk - what exactly is your question? Your draft has been declined 5 timed and now is rejected, it will not be considered any further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an editor, but this looks like a stub. You should've mentioned that.81.141.191.206 (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:17, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Ali R Perth

edit


Ali R Perth (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ive created this Kate Cherry page for a friend of mine (as a profile of her professional achievements and contribution to the arts industry in Australia). The info ie the dates have been supplied by her. The articles included (in the further reading section) refer to a number of the organisations etc she has worked for and back up the info she has supplied . Im unsure when you are profiling a person how else you can refer to the information.

thank you. Alison

@Ali R Perth: - Please read the comment the Reviewer gave you in his decline, your article is missing mandatory inline citations. Also please have a closer look at WP:COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:45, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Ttvk1nlive

edit

Hey there, I wanted to create a wikipedia page because it is required to have to have a google knowledge board. I was hoping I could be told on how to get this further approved so my viewers, listeners, and followers can contribute to this page. I noticed since I wrote the beginning about myself I had to add that I did that. What do I have to put so I can say I wrote it and get this approved?

Thank you so much for your time, Ryan Ttvk1nlive (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ttvk1nlive Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". I must be frank with you- and I apologize- but Wikipedia has no interest in helping you enhance search results for you(such as through Google Knowledge Graphs), helping you connect with your followers, or in otherwise aiding your internet presence. We aren't concerned with any requirements imposed upon you by Google or others. The only thing Wikipedia is interested in is summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You have not offered any such sources. We are interested in what others have chosen to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. I might suggest that other social media outlets or alternative forums are more appropriate for your goals.
Be advised that a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:04:58, 3 March 2021 review of submission by BeaufordSleeper

edit

Hey there Wikipedia people!

I just edited this page and wrote about one my favorite people. I can't tell if my edits were rejected or if the page was rejected.

Thank you! BeaufordSleeper (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeaufordSleeper The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. Please see my post to the person who I assume solicited your involvement above. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He just posted the link in discord saying he can't create the page. I follow him, so I wanted to share what I knew! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaufordSleeper (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeaufordSleeper, The person and the draft fail to show notability. The draft is a blatant advert. If you can create a good draft asserting and verifying their notability in reliable sources please do so. Please do not seek to share what you know. Wikipedia records only that which others have written. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thank you for clarifying. This draft will not delete right? It'll take some time gathering all the resources. Once gathered do I create a new draft? or do I add on to this one.

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaufordSleeper (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeaufordSleeper, This draft has already been deleted as a blatant advert. Please take the following approach:
  1. Seek references which meet the criteria summarised in WP:42
  2. From those references extract the fact that you wish to highlight
  3. Sort the facts into a storyboard order
  4. Create a new draft and write it, but write it tightly, and without any form of bias for or against. Stick only to the facts.
This technique will show you before you even consider submitting it for review whether the subject is likely to pass muster. No useful references means non acceptance.
Do not confuse quantity of references with quality. A short, well referenced, tightly written draft making a small number of salient points is highly likely to succeed Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_March_3&oldid=1011136727"