Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 29

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< January 28 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 30 >
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.


January 29 edit

00:41:32, 29 January 2022 review of submission by KatherineDavis150 edit


Please re-review this article with edits because Brenda Carey is a regional political leader who also held several state appointed positions, making her a notable political figure due to her regional and state-level leadership. As reflected, she has also been involved in national politics on the committee level. The article is updated to reflect this as well. In addition, sources have been added to show coverage. Of interest, Brenda Carey also was one of the first politicians to report Joel Greenberg to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who ended up becoming a nationally-covered figure due to his involvement with Congressman Matt Gaetz. This is now reflected in the article as well. Thank you.

KatherineDavis150 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KatherineDavis150 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. County level politicians do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, and to meet the broader notable person definition there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. The sources you offer do not seem to be that. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:18:26, 29 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4064:2E88:C03C:0:0:26CB:D40E edit

I think being on Wikipedia is good experience and looks like professional as well as a trusty channel. So I decided to write an article over aftotalantos as he make fantastic and ausome video so more people can know through the platform and they can entertain themselves.

Thank you.

2409:4064:2E88:C03C:0:0:26CB:D40E (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a clear advertisement; Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:15, 29 January 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew edit


Now, I have added several high quality reference websites and article to support the authenticity of the Redcliffe Labs.. Kindly check and do the needful SandAndrew (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandAndrew The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. The authenticity is not at issue; this organization does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this organization, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal declaration, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:14, 29 January 2022 review of draft by UikiHedeo edit


I wonder why the edition of article Flash (weekly magasize) does not seen as the addition from the credible source. Doesn't they mispersepted the edition was not the addition? The addtion of sentences about the history of Japanese photo magazine and the number of copies statistics are not valuable?

which "one of the references is a Wikipedia link" indicate does you mean???UikiHedeo (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UikiHedeo (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UikiHedeo. Greenman may have mistaken the second reference for Wikipedia because it strangely links further down the page, to the single entry in the bibliography section, something none of the other references do. The underlying source is Twitter, which is questionable in most cases. It might be a reliable source for where the editorial office is located and the day of the week on which the magazine is published, but definitely is not a reliable source for the statement, "is sold at each bookstore and convenience store in Japan." A further problem is that the Twitter account is unverified, and weeklyflash is different from the (also unverified) info_smafla account linked from the external link you've given. An explanation of the difference between Flash and Smart Flash is called for.
The other sources are the publisher's website, an interview with the publisher, and a database of the Japan Magazine Publishers Association. These may be useful sources of information, but none of them help show that Flash is notable (suitable for a stand alone article) because they lack independence or are indiscriminate. If you can't find sources to demonstrate the notability of Flash, perhaps you can find sources that would support a more general article about the history of photojournalism magazines in Japan. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Thank you for your comment.
First I think if Greenman have mistaken in somewhere and I cannot fix the problem which he did pointed, couldn't your help me to reject his rejection? Because I cannot solve the problem which does not exist.
Second, I hope you will be more tolerant to the credibility criteria and existence of the article. When you want to know where a magazine is soled, the most credible information source is not the publisher of the magazine? FLASH may be sold in each bookstore and convenience store in Japan, that is not the overstatement. The magazine may not sold in drugstore which is also well-seen retail stores in Japan because the publisher do not affiliated with them.
The sentences from the interview is not always from the insider, but sometimes from the interviewer whom not dependent to the company.
The statistics from the Japan Magazine Publishers Association, which is not perfectly independent from the publisher of the magazine but is a officially recognized alliance of many publishers, is relatively objective and may be the only statistics available about the number of copies of weekly magazine published in Japan. When in 1980s, there exist 5 or more weekly photo magazines on that statistics, but now there only exist two magazines. That might explain these two magazines are notable to explained.
There already exist the article of Friday (magazine), the rival of the FLASH, and the source of that article is similar with the FLASH article. I don't think the information of the article FLASH is so rich, but I think are sufficient to publish in main space now.
Twitter account of editorial office and collecting office of weekly FLASH also exist and I wrote them. But were removed by other user Special:Diff/1046340369/1063887892. So is not difficult to modify them. Please select some of them, as you like. THANK YOU! UikiHedeo (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comment to the draft explaining that the second reference is not really to Wikipedia. That isn't why Greenman declined the draft, though, it's just a comment they made. The big pink box at the top contains the reason for the decline: the draft fails to show that Flash is notable.
It is impossible for anything on the publisher's website or tweeted by Flash to prove that Flash is notable. The Japan Magazine Publishers Association database cannot show that Flash is notable because it is an indiscriminate source. It aims to cover all magazines in Japan, not just those that fit Wikipedia's special definition of notable. I speak very little Japanese, so I will leave it to other reviewers to determine whether there is sufficient independent analysis in the ITmedia interview for it to count as one source towards demonstrating notability. In any case, editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of their topic. Even if the interview is one, one will not be enough.
Essays Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) emphasize the importance that publishing award-winning work has in determining notability. It would help the draft if you could add independent sources that prove Flash has won a notable Japanese journalism award.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:06, 29 January 2022 review of draft by Lofty10820 edit


In my draft article about Gordon Joseph Lippman, on Reference footnote #1 - you noted an error in my ISBN citation. However, this book, "No Place to Die" only has an ASIN number which is included. I have not been able to locate an ISBN number for this book. I have a personal copy which does not include an ISBN. How do I correct this error?

Lofty10820 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you. I'll make the change and remove ASIN, but not sure how to do that as when I try to edit the Reference, Wiki presents me with an edit box that doesn't allow me to remove ASIN. Can't figure out how to get in that line and edit just that issue. Lofty10820 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Robert Lofthouse[reply]

Lofty10820 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Robert Lofthouse[reply]

Hi Lofty10820. Don't put an ASIN in the |isbn= field. Not only is it wrong to call it something it isn't, but ASINs are of limited value on Wikipedia because they're one bookseller's product number, and Wikipedia tries not to promote any particular bookseller. Instead, set |oclc=924353238 in the citation. This will allow readers to easily locate a library copy. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lofty10820: I've made the adjustment for you. I can't describe how to do it in the visual editor, if that's what you're using. Out of habit I use the source editor. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:20, 29 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4064:4DC5:48CB:0:0:260B:A602 edit

I think being on Wikipedia is good experience and looks like professional as well as a trusty channel. So I decided to write an article over aftotalantos as he make fantastic and ausome video so more people can know through the platform and they can entertain themselves.

Thank you.

2409:4064:4DC5:48CB:0:0:260B:A602 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the wrong reason to write an article, as that is a promotional purpose. See WP:PROMO. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:14, 29 January 2022 review of submission by Summerhouse21 edit


The page on 'epistemic insight' that I submitted for consideration was reviewed and rejected by AngusW on 5 July 2021.

The reviewer's comments were very helpful and I resubmitted the page with changes. the status of the page then said 'under review'

The next reviewer comment was made by Rusalkii on 14 December 2021 - recommending I reduce the number of external links.

However the status of the page continued to say 'under review' - it did not change to 'rejected' as before.

I would like the page to please be considered again as I have made changes to the page to respond to Rusalkii's useful comments. But there's no button to resubmit.

As the status says 'under review' does that mean it will be reviewed again anyway - or do I need to activate a resubmission somehow? Sorry to query and thank you for your help,

- please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epistemic_insight

Summerhouse21 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summerhouse21 It was declined, not rejected(rejection would be it could not be resubmitted). You submitted it for review again and it is pending. It will be reviewed in due course by a volunteer, please be patient. As noted on the draft, it could take some time. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:38, 29 January 2022 review of draft by Flagship1 edit 

need to delete all changes made on Jan 29 2022. There are errors that are mutiplied every time i tried to delete an incorrect change Hence probably 25 edits non of which need to be on wikipedia

how do i delete any involvement with wikipedia including all edits regarding article draft:charles arthur Williams

Flagship1 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flagship1. Editor Mcmatter reverted all your January 29th edits of the draft. They aren't exactly "deleted", they're still visible in the page's history, but the current text has been restored it to the way it was on January 22nd. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I decide to delete the account and the draft article do edits remain? How would i permanently delete the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.221.159.238 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted, you can simply abandon the account and no longer edit from it. As for page deletions, it really is only hide from public view, administrators can still see all the edits and text in the history. There is a heightened version of deletion called oversight, however in this case I don't think it would be warranted or approved since none of the edits revealed any sort of identifying information and the gmail links don't work for anyone else. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_January_29&oldid=1069783963"