Help desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 23[edit]

Help[edit]

Please may I ask you why these articles have been declined : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Étienne_Anheim , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Valérie-Laure_Bénabou , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Laurent_Mucchielli , Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Europolytec. All the recommandations were respected. But I will not try to resubmit the articles one more time. I keep like that. Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer said those drafts' references are rather problematic. Many are primary sources such as websites of orgaizations affiliated with the subject or this video by UVSQ about a UVSQ professor. Others are reliable secondary subjects, but mention the subject only in passing or not at all, such as this article which mentions Mucchielli only in a half-sentence. To be considered notable, people must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles that devote at least a paragraph to the person. Huon (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Rocky.cobb/Rocky cobb[edit]

Hi Team,

I am trying to write few articles about my life, please look my request and do the needful.

my name is rocky cobb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky.cobb (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That draft is currently empty. You may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Our guidelines on notability, in particular WP:BIO, may also be of interest. Unless you have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources your life probably is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

writting about someone life is allowed in WIKI if i am right, then why is my request not being looked, please look my request and allow it ASAP, i am sure my article will get many hits only if you guys allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky.cobb (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not actually written anything in your draft. It's empty. The response above from User:Huon tells you everything you need to know. Your submission will not be accepted at this time. Pol430 talk to me 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Red Haircrow[edit]

I am writing to ask how to make citations appear correctly, so that they generate a citation list. I've added all contributable information I could readily find on the person. It had previously been declined because the person said this author and publisher was non-notable, although clearly there is information of note and several pages on wikipedia on authors with far less information and items of note. This is for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Red Haircrow Contributingauthor (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Contributing Author. Thank you for your help![reply]

I've added the {{reflist}} template that will list the footnotes in the references section. However, I don't think the sources suffice to establish Red Haircrow's notability. The vast majority are primary sources such as Haircrow's own website or the websites of organizations he's affiliated with, such as his publishers. Multiple others didn't mention Red Haircrow at all. The remaining few, the citation websites and the Rainbow Award, show no indication of editorial oversight - in particular the award seems to be just a random person's opinion published on her personal website. Furthermore, that random person reporting on the award she grants herself is again a primary source. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles in published literary magazines with editorial oversight, and we require significant coverage in such sources (that means multiple good sources covering the subject in some detail) to establish a person's notability. Huon (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Again, however, I have seen literally hundreds of instances of authors and others on Wikipedia who have far less sources and references, even of the kind you detail, and they are listed ON Wikipedia so don't give me "significant coverage" needed...because many of us know better. That is particularly biased and sad, as you have people like this, not just because of their notable culture and background that some like you think nothing at all. And no, just because you don't know of it, doesn't mean its just a "self-granted award." The award itself is noted and added by hundreds of other authors and publishers in similar genres also. I used the link directly the genre award but there are literally 100s of other authors awarded who have also had this award added on Wikipedia yet it hasn't been derided as you have attempted to do towards Red Haircrow Rainbow Awards 2012. In some ways, I feel its useless to reply because you are downing things you obviously don't even know anything about. And yes, you can click thru a page and dismiss it because you don't know about it and then use it as an excuse to decline an article but primarily just because you have made a judgement based on your own opinion not facts that are known in a certain segment of publishing industry.

By the way, when you use a term like editorial oversight, would indicate something was omitted or an error was in place by the editorial staff. There was no "editorial oversight" as your incorrect definition of the term. That is one of the drawbacks of site like Wikipedia, when you have those who think they know it all and can post judgements wrongly just because of their personal opinions on a topic, and deny knowledge about a notable figure from being presented. That's okay in the end because there is much more than goes on and will be known and "notable" than what one arbitrary person on here will ever personally know or can commment on or decide. You can have a couple of random people declining for what they feel is their opinion while you have others who accept based on the same material presented. Contributingauthor (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ContributingAuthor[reply]

Other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Regarding the Rainbow Awards, it seems published among a certain Elisa Rolle's "reviews and ramblings" - if it isn't just Rolle's personal opinion, can you please point me towards information on the process? The website you link to is hosted by LiveJournal, a blog host, and is clearly self-published by Rolle. What organization, if any, is behind the award? Has the award received coverage in newspapers or literary magazines? If such an independent source mentioned that Red Haircrow won a third-place Rainbow Award, that would help show it's indeed a notable award.

I'm not sure what your comment on editorial oversight refers to - I didn't claim Wikipedia has editorial oversight, but Wikipedia's sources should have. Huon (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Co-operative Socialism[edit]

Hi friends

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Co-operative Socialism

I accept that I am too close to this subject to be the article's creator - the pointer to books, etc, however, show this to be a well-used term and one that merits a Wikipedia entry.

I wonder, therefor, if a more experienced editor could take on the task of preparing this page for inclusion?

Thanks!

John courtneidge (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC) John Courtneidge[reply]

The draft seems to deal mostly with the etymology of the term "co-operative socialism", not with co-operative socialism itself. I don't think the sources suffice to establish that the term has been widely discussed, as opposed to the socialism. Besides, blogs and ListServ entries are not reliable sources because they lack editorial oversight.

You may request someone else to write an article via WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, here probably Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Linguistics or Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social sciences/Politics and government depending on whether the term or what it denotes shall be the subject of the proposed draft. Please provide reliable sources on which an article might be based. Huon (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]