Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Draft denial

Feb. 4, 2016

Hello! Back in October 2015 a submission titled Draft: Gestalt Pastoral Care was denied by Wikipedia. I understand the reasons. My organization's problem is that we don't have any other published third party sources at this time to beef up our article. Could you please give me some suggestions about how Gestalt Pastoral Care (a nonprofit organization) could proceed in completing an acceptable Wikipedia article? The organization has grown from a grass-roots level since the 1970s. It is mainly the birth child of its founder, Tilda Norberg. Therefore the previously published information/articles about Gestalt Pastoral Care (the subject matter for the wiki page) is written by Tilda, and thus the problem with having neutral, third party sources in our bibliography. Suggestions?

Thank you, Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.209.139 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the answer is, without that third-party material available, we cannot accept an article on that subject at all. We do require such material in order to ensure neutrality. Of course if in the future substantial amounts of independent and reliable material are published about the organization, an article would be possible at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a cross-post of WP:AFCHD#16:28:30, 4 February 2016 review of submission by GestaltPastoralCareGrow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you need to realize is that Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which any group or person is entitled to maintain an article about itself for the purposes of increasing its visibility. We're an encyclopedia, on which the availability of third-party reliable sources about a topic is the base criterion that has to be met for that topic to qualify for an article. Lots of people and groups don't satisfy our inclusion criteria — not because we're being unfair to them, but because it's not our purpose or role to be an all-inclusive promotional directory of every single group that exists at all. We don't grant non-profit groups an exemption from our inclusion standards just because they're doing good work — helping groups increase their public profile because they haven't already gotten enough press coverage to get into an encyclopedia the normal way isn't what we're here for. So if those sources don't exist by your own admission, then the organization just can't be on here yet. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The draft has now been speedily deleted per G11. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YogaSlackers

Resolved

- Article speedily deleted as copyvio. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this article reads like an advertisement, but I'd really like a second opinion before tagging it or making any changes. Thoughts? Rasimmons (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Glad I could have the input. Rasimmons (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's worse, all the revisions contain copied-pasted text from a variety of sources—mostly the subject's website. I've tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. While much of it has been cleared out, even the current revision contains copyvio text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the games we play... Rasimmons (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a lesson here it's that anytime you see a newish article that's iffy in terms of promotional language, it can be enormously productive to run a copyvio check (I love Earwig's Copyvio Detector). This is especially true of the first revision of an article (i.e., before the copied text gets wikified). Far too often, rehabbing a promotional article that doesn't clearly qualify for G11 gives us something that's just a derivative work of a copyvio. Sometimes you can use {{copyvio-revdel}} to just slice out the copyvio revisions, but in this case every single revision has some copied text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good catch. I took out everything that seemed overtly promotional but did not consider the obvious inference, which is that material that sounds like it came from a brochure or web site might've, you know, come from a brochure or website - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I asked some more experienced editors rather than make any edits myself. I didn't know how to check for copy-pasting, but it's good to know now. Rasimmons (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunesaburō Makiguchi

Even though I have retired from en.wikipedia this edit has caught my attention [1]. In the talk page the reasons for the edit has been given as follows: [2]. Besides the fact that the edit as such is purely POV it also defies logic. How can a group founded in the twentieth century predate a group originally founded in the late nineteenth century?? Besides that the edit deletes well-resourced material. The reason for me turning to this noticeboard is that I am officially banned from articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism. For that reason I decided to retire … none the less I fear that certain articles on the subject are being white washed yet again. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WT:EAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurotophobia

I must again request assistance from this board, as I don't want to step on toes, but feel like I ought to do something. The aforementioned page has multiple issues with sourcing, and I feel as if it would work much better as a simple dictionary article (maybe at Wiktionary). The subject is plainly not notable or sourceable enough to provide any useful information to readers, in my opinion. Looking on the article's talk page, it seems that it was already nominated for a deletion, and through the arbitrator's "fuzzy math", the decision was to move the article instead, which it appears was not done either. Should something be done? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flow-Based Programming primary-inline tags

The talk page does exist, even though it is shown in red! Jpaulm (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed to make talk page link work. (With {{La}}, article title must be exact.) The tags are proper because to say, "Stevens wrote several articles describing and supporting the FBP concept, and included material about it in several of his books." Wikipedia policy requires a source under the Verifiability policy which actually says that; to look at his writings, analyze or count them, and make that assertion violates the No original research policy. Frankly, that paragraph is subject to being removed altogether as not being reliably sourced with proper sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the "talk" link! I am wondering if the problem is simply that this technology was not called "FBP" when Wayne wrote his books. If this is the problem, could we not simply add a clause saying something like "...in several of his books, using the earlier name "Data Flow". This earlier name is given in the preceding History paragraph, so I thought it was obvious! Maybe not?! Alternatively, if the issue is that we need actual quotes from Wayne's books, unfortunately I only have two of them in my possession. I don't seem to have the Byte article, so I have no objection to dropping the reference to it, and including his book "Using Structured Design" instead (which is in my web site bibliography). In "Software Design - Concepts and Methods", he has a whole appendix describing DFDM, an early FBP implementation for the IBM S/370. In the other book ("Using Structured Design"), he has a number of references to Data Flow. Are you saying that I (actually it will have to be someone else, as I am banned from changing this article) should include actual quotes from Wayne's books, or would my above suggestion about including the earlier name be sufficient? If either is the right action, could I ask someone to make the necessary changes? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that he mentioned it in "several books" is important enough to include in the article, then there should be an independent reliable source which says "several books" which can be cited to support the statement. If you try to cure it by quoting his individual books or even saying something like "he mentioned it in [Book Title A], [Book Title B], and [Book Title C]," which is a statement which can legitimately be sourced by those books as primary sources, then you start running into the problem of whether that level of detail gives undue weight to the fact that it was mentioned in those books. The question of what it was called when he wrote the books is an entirely different problem which I've not addressed until now and did not play a part in what I've said up until now. If it is well-established in the article through reliable sources that what he called it is the same thing as FBP, then there shouldn't be a problem. If, however, that fact is not established through reliable sources, then to say (or imply or take for granted) that what he was talking about is the same thing as FBP may be prohibited original research even if it is generally accepted in that discipline that it is the same thing, unless the process that he describes (i.e. disregarding the name that he calls it) is undeniably the same thing as FBP. Finally, let me note that the simplest remedy for you might just be to leave it as it is with the tags in place. There doesn't seem to be anyone working to remove the material (and I'm not going to do it) and it doesn't seem to be all that controversial. It could remain there in the current state forever under those circumstances. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very clear and complete answer - I think what you suggest is definitely the simplest solution! I was worried that these tags would trigger some kind of review process, but it sounds like that isn't a big concern. Thanks again! Jpaulm (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]