Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swkayne (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 9 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


June 3

17:15:48, 3 June 2017 review of submission by TooTallSid


Please help me. I am stumped about why Dosho Port lacks notability. I reviewed the suggested pages Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (people).

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

— Attribution, Wikipedia:Notability (people)

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

— Attribution, Wikipedia:Notability (people)

The verifiable, reliable, independent secondary sources in this article:

  • Martin, Andrea. "Ceaseless Effort The Life of Dainin Katagiri" (PDF). Minnesota Zen Mediation Center. mnzencenter.org.
  • McDaniel, Richard Bryan (2015). Cypress trees in the garden : the second generation of Zen teaching in North America. Sumeru Press. ISBN 9781896559261.
  • Ford, James Ishmael (2006). ZEN MASTER WHO?: A Guide to the People and Stories of Zen. Wisdom Publications. ISBN 9780861715091.
  • "Sanbo Kyodan: Harada-Yasutani School of Zen Buddhism and its Teachers". ciolek.com. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  • Ford, James. "Monkey Mind - Easily Distracted". Patheos.
  • "Official Website of the City of Minneapolis".

Dosho Port has received a well-known and significant award or honor in the form of dharma transmission from two notable Zen masters in the United States.

From a real world standpoint, I made these comments about Dosho Port's notability on the talk page for this article.

  • In Zen, lineage is very important. The Zen concept of dharma transmission is the final, official certification by a Zen teacher that a Zen student is 100% able to continue the teacher's instruction. Lineage is like getting an Eagle scout in the B.S.A. - one has to jump through many hoops and demonstrate competence. Dosho can trace his lineage back to the historical Buddha. More importantly, he can trace his lineage back to some of the more important Zen masters in the U.S.
  • Dosho is mature (in his 60's). He has worked with many people in the current Zen tradition.
  • Dosho has innovated in developing a way to support Zen students who do not have easy access to a teachers. Currently 30 students pay $1,200 year to work with him.
  • Dosho (and his wife, Tetsugan Zummach) are the new priests at the Nebraska Zen Center, one of the oldest Zen centers in the U.S. (40 years)
  • Dosho is part of the "new age" in American Zen that combines the teachings of the two main schools of Zen, Soto and Rinzai. This is an exciting approach to Zen that is strongest in the U.S.
  • Dosho has demonstrated the value of his Zen practice in his work with violent youth in the Minneapolis public school system.

Dharma transmission is particularly important and the impetus for creating this page. Lineage and dharma inheritance seem to be unique to Buddhism. They allow the teachings to be traced back even to the historical Buddha, 2500 years ago. It is somewhat like Emmanuel Ax being able to trace his teachers back to Franz Liszt, except even stronger.

Comments?

Hi TooTallSid. Let's examine the premise that the draft cites six reliable, independent, secondary sources:
  • In what way do you feel Martin fits Wikipedia's description of a reliable source? Is Martin an academic, journalist, or professional writer? They write, "This essay ... is simply the result of my personal quest to learn about my teacher's life and preserve what I found in narrative form. It was written to honor Katagiri Roshi." Is the publisher a university press, academic publisher, or respected mainstream publisher? Does either the author or the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? The book contains only three sentences about Port, which does not constitute a substantial depth of coverage. Also, Port is listed in its bibliography, which calls into question its independence from Port.
  • McDaniel is another unknown author writing for a very small publisher. It is held by only four WorldCat libraries. This might be because it is a relatively new book, or because it's on a niche topic. It also might indicate that libraries don't consider it a good source. Whatever its quality, the total content attributed to it is "Port has had a rich life in Zen", which suggests that it does not have a substantial depth of coverage of him. The book is based on interviews. If the material on Port came from an interview with Port, then whether it's independent depends on whether McDaniel has provided substantial analysis of his own, or whether it's just Port talking about Port.
  • ZEN MASTER WHO? is the most promising source. It's from a well known publisher, and is widely held by research libraries. However, the total content attributed to it is a sentence and a half, which again raises concerns about its depth of detail on the subject.
  • Ciolek has a mere three sentences about Port.
  • Monkey Mind is a blog, not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference.
  • The City of Minneapolis source lists Port as one of 50 individuals to receive an award from the police department in 2010. This does not constitute significant coverage.
Some of these are reliable, independent, secondary sources, but even in aggregate they do not contain significant coverage of Port.
Perhaps you can find more and better sources, or provide more information to assuage concerns about some of the sources above (by mining the sources for more content, or through the citation template's quote parameter, for example). You may be able to get assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism. You've read the relevant policies and guidelines. To gain a deeper understanding of how they're applied, you may find it useful to participate at WP:RSN and/or WP:AfD for a while. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Hello

Could you please answer to a quetion ? The Draft Draft :Parisa Music Mixify , are they sources correct or not ? And what I must do else it moved to article wikipédia ?

I put the same sources as g-eazy : Genius , Discogs,Songkick an article on IDboox ; Le Parisien....

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.8.146.123 (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would recommend reading the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as it can give you a better handle on proper sources. At this point the sources you have used are unlikely to be seen as reliable enough. Isingness (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:26, 5 June 2017 review of submission by MicroPowerpoint


I want to know whether the article is alright at best and can be a real article or if I need to improve it further and how so. I pretty much want to know if the article needs trimming and if it passes WP:MUSICBIO. Micro (Talk) 02:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MicroPowerpoint, the draft is in the queue to be reviewed, you will receive feedback in due course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:31:59, 5 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Narayanan, Ananth


I have added the references to the draft but unable to submit for evaluation. There is no submit button in the edit page

Narayanan, Ananth (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ananth. There was no "submit" button because you chose to delete all of the reviewers findings and comments. I've restored them, and you'll find a "submit" button in the top-most decline box. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:37, 5 June 2017 review of submission by Abishe


Abishe (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't have much citations to this article,I wanted to create this article about popular Sri Lankan sportsperson.That's all.But I know that I won't get the permission to create this article.I will accept the views of every Wikipedians if they are not willing to give permit foe my draft.Thank You Abishe (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abishe. Thank you for your submission. Articles for Creation is severely backlogged, so it may take a month or so, but Draft:Ananda Wedisinghe will be reviewed in due course. While you are waiting, search the Sri Lanka motorsport press for any additional sources that would help demonstrate notability and flesh out the description of his career. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:39, 5 June 2017 review of submission by RLass

Hello! I am in the second review stage for the page Funner, California. I updated the page with all of the articles that surfaced May 19 in hopes that this page would be adequately supported. Is there any more details or knowledge that anyone can provide as to how to get this page approved? Or what stage is this second round of review at?

Thank you! RLass (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think your references look pretty solid, however you may want to ensure you have removed any language that could be seen as promotional (such as when you say the business is committed to "fun"), and ensure all aspects of the page are sourced so that there is no content without proper referencing before resubmitting the draft for review. Isingness (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

07:27:44, 6 June 2017 review of submission by Shainy123


Shainy123 07:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Shainy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:46:11, 6 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Aheisk


 I have several times tried to have this entry submitted but each time it has been rejected.  It is not clear why. Please assist me to have the entry finalised.  Thank you.


Aheisk (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aheisk the history of the page Draft:Christopher Lloyd (Economic Historian and Political Economist) (b Moree, Australia, 1950) shows no evidence that it has ever been reviewed or even submitted for review. In fact it was created in a single edit on 19 March 2017 and has not been touched since. I suspect any previous versions may have been deleted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger: The page has now been edited slightly and submitted, I believe. Please help me through the next stage. Thank you. Aheisk (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aheisk to submit it you need to place {{subst:submit}} (including the double curly braces) on either the top or bottom of the page. However I can already see that your referencing is not up to the required standard for a biography of a living person, you need to use inline footnotes, see the inline citation guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aheisk, before you resubmit I urge you to reflect carefully on Rule 7 of the Wikipedia editor. Rule 7 says: "Avoid Shameless Self-Promotion".
Here it goes: "Many people are tempted to write or edit Wikipedia articles about themselves. Resist that urge. If you are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, eventually someone else will write an article about you. Remember that unlike a personal Web page, your Wikipedia biography is not yours to control. A lovingly crafted hagiography extolling your many virtues can rapidly accumulate information you would rather not be publicized."

11:46:48, 6 June 2017 review of draft by Essexgroup


I am trying to create an article about our company. How do I go about adding information that appears within the box on the top-right of the page? It contains key numerical information.


Essexgroup (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essexgroup. What you have in mind is an infobox. The formal documentation for the relevant one is Template:Infobox company. You can edit the source of any company article that has one, such as BAE Systems or Oliver Typewriter Company to see an example of its use.
Before you go too far down the path of trying to write an encyclopedia article about your company, I encourage you to read WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. What you're doing is a terrible idea, for so many reasons.
To be accepted, the draft would have to cite significant coverage of ESG in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, thereby showing that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Think substantial profiles in The Financial Times, The Economist, and The Wall Street Journal. The bulk of any article should be supported by such independent sources, with non-independent ones used only for non-controversial details. --Worldbruce (talk)

Thank you for your advice. I will find further independent sources and add to the article before going through review and then submission. I was using other construction company pages as exmaples and couldnt see many independent sources. There are no marketing type information just facts and fugures of the company i.e. timeline and what it is that ESG does. --Essexgroup (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:38, 6 June 2017 review of submission by Aheisk

Roger: if I fix the citations, is there any guarantee that the article will be published? Aheisk (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aheisk. No, but if you don't fix the citations then realistically there's zero chance that the draft will be accepted. A bigger problem is that you appear to be citing mainly sources written by Lloyd. Such sources are of little value in your endeavor. You need sources written about Lloyd by people independent of him, such as critical reviews of his books published in scholarly journals. --Worldbruce (talk)
Aheisk, once again--you don't seem to have digested Rule 7 of the Wikipedia editor. Rule 7 says: "Avoid Shameless Self-Promotion".
Here it goes: "Many people are tempted to write or edit Wikipedia articles about themselves. Resist that urge. If you are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, eventually someone else will write an article about you. Remember that unlike a personal Web page, your Wikipedia biography is not yours to control. A lovingly crafted hagiography extolling your many virtues can rapidly accumulate information you would rather not be publicized."

14:25:39, 6 June 2017 review of submission by Alphabetty85

The subject of the page is standing as a Parliamentary candidate in the 2017 UK General Election - please can you advise me how to make the references reflect the subject's notability? I have added some more references so far but let me know what else i need to do please

Alphabetty85 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alphabetty85: Wait three days. If Gideon wins the seat, I will pass the article as she will be notable per WP:POLITICIAN, although somebody might independently create the article. If she doesn't, we can create a redirect to the constituency's article. Mhairi Black got a well-written article within half an hour of her defeating Douglas Alexander at the 2015 election, for instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:22, 6 June 2017 review of submission by 97.89.29.152


97.89.29.152 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

This my first time writing in Wikipedia and I had been rejected it. I wondering why? Any thoughts will be more than welcome. Thanks in advance.

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Which rejection are you asking about? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

15:54:27, 7 June 2017 review of submission by PedroNolan

Hi, I got this message "Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.' regarding my article on Laura Guido-Clark. I am confused and would appreciate guidance on the following questions: 1. I did copy/paste text from a word document I was working on. The text is not copyrighted but did copy/paste action prompt the message from Wiki? Should I type directly into Wiki? 2. The article cites video and article content which I am sure is under copyright. Is this the problem?

PedroNolan (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pedro. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The reviewer who expressed concern about copyright violations was very explicit as to the original sources that were copied. A list of them appears in the comment section immediately above the draft itself. For example, you did not simply cite the biographical sketch found at http://schedule.sxsw.com/2017/speakers/2718 -- you actually copied portions of the text. And that web site does claim copyright in the material. Is there some reason why that copyright claim is not valid? And will that reason also apply to all of the other sources that the reviewer identified? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

09:48:46, 8 June 2017 review of submission by SunnyBoi


I have added in the Goodreads ratings and some extra reviews. Thank you for your time!

Hi SunnyBoi. Goodreads, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, and has been removed from the draft. Similarly, personal blogs, being self-published, are reliable only for the opinion of the author, and everyone has an opinion. The obvious self-published blogs have been removed from the draft. If any remain, they should be removed too. Wikipedia is interested in what professional book critics have written about the series in reliable sources: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Canberra Times, The West Australian, The Sun-Herald, The Cairns Post, etc. Those are the sources the draft should emphasize. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

08:44:29, 9 June 2017 review of submission by Horatiu.prica


I have made changes to the entire article. Also, I have added extra sources like SD Times. If you can give me any feedback on how to improve the article, please let me know.

Request on 12:38:17, 9 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by JMDPayal



JMDPayal (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JMD. Do you have a specific question? ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:01, 9 June 2017 review of submission by Swkayne


I submitted an article for review nearly three weeks ago. It has yet to be reviewed. I'm wondering if the list of references was accurately cited. The draft article is entitled Louis Bickford. Thank you.


Swkayne (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=784692217"