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 Eri4c (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 18 January 2013 (→Re-submission: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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



January 12

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sayadaw U Tejaniya

Hello --

This article was just declined because of notability standards and I'm confused about their application here. I'm also not clear about how to contact the person who made the determination as wikipedia directs me to his talk page but his talk page seems to dissuade one from trying to reach him there.

The 'Golden Rule' requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are already references in the proposed article to full published articles - not just passing mentions -- on the subject in two of the four most prominent English-language magazines on Buddhism and meditation, both journals of longstanding with large circulations.

I'm not sure why that wouldn't be sufficient to meet the standard. If it isn't, please let me know what would be. There are articles on Sayadaw U Tejaniya in magazines all over the world, but most of them are not in English but rather in Burmese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese.

Iguana0000 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not answering your question in full, but just commenting on your question - the article seems to all be referenced from a single source - the website OF Sayadaw U Tejaniya. Maybe a better tag would have been a verifibility tag, but that's not important. You said he has articles published in notable journals, but that's missing the point. A lot of people publish on notable newspapers and journals, but it does not mean they are notable. Can you find notable newspapers that did a feature on him?
To contact the guy, please click here. He is available, he's just clowning with you. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer commented on the draft, major parts, including, for example, the entire "Overseas teachings" section, don't give any sources at all. Wikipedia content must be verifiable from reliable, independent sources, and much of this draft simply isn't.
Of the sources you do give, one is a broken link to a blog (probably not a reliable source in the first place) and most others are interviews with Sayadaw U Tejaniya - not quite as independent as we'd like. Huon (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donut Press

Hi please could you explain why the citations contained in my draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donut Pressare not adequate? The awards refered too are internationaly recognised and the sources independent. I see there are many articles with fewer and less independant sources that are published on Wiki, indeed there is an article about a similarly sized poetry press 'Penned in the margins' which is published here with fewer and less prestigious citations. I would suggest the success and unique nature of the press make it notable. If there is something amiss with the way the sources/citations have been included then please advise. Thankyou Nickondite Nickondite (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of your four references, three don't even devote a single sentence to Donut Press, and the fourth is a profile written by Donut Press founder Andy Ching - not an independent source. To be considered notable a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" is usually interpreted as "multiple sources of at least a paragraph each about the subject". Your references don't satisfy that standard, and equally problematic, they don't serve to verify all the draft's content - for example, none of them mentions Jackson or Warner.
And while other problematic articles may exist, that's no reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ian Stylezz

I'm creating this page for Ian Stylezz...what am I doing wrong that is preventing it from being approved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Stylezz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.222.133 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft claims Stylezz has received "much critical acclaim for his work in film since the 2004", yet one of the references doesn't mention him at all, and the other three are bare cast listings without any kind of details. And I somehow doubt roles like "Pier Salesman" are likely to attract critical acclaim. In short, your draft's content is unverifiable and there's no indication Stylezz is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information submitted IS NOT personal opinion. The article is written by me from transcripts received directly from band members and therefore reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris4shon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scrap base 10

Come back submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell what that draft is supposed to be about, and it doesn't cite any reliable sources. At best it looks like a personal opinion about which number system we should use, but Wikipedia does not publish editors' personal opinions. Huon (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Family (band)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Family_%28band%29&action=edit&redlink=1

Hi, I recently submitted a page that you did not accept based on copyright material. Information I submitted from http://www.angelfire.com/in2/familys/home.html is my own work as I created the website therefore copyright is not infringed. Photos I submitted were either taken by me or given to me with permission to use from the group. How do I go about citation on information that I know is correct as I collected it directly from the band members.

Thanks

Chris4shon (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Family_%28band%29&action=edit&redlink=1

The information submitted IS NOT personal opinion. The article is written by me from transcripts received directly from band members and therefore reliable.

Chris4shon (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately WIkipedia policy automatically grants copyrighted status to text taken from elsewhere on the internet, unless it is specifically disclaimed at source. If you do own the copyright to http://www.angelfire.com/in2/familys/home.html then you can donate the material to Wikipedia; however, it will be necessary for you to prove that you own the copyright. To find out how to do this, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and follow the instructions. Pol430 talk to me 23:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thoughts (before I read the angelfire source) were "this is a duplicate". You need to call your article something else, as there is already an article on Family (band), which had notable chart success and one member subsequently played in Blind Faith alongside Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood, which means it will probably keep the "main" band title. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.RAO

WHY M'RAO IS NOT RESPONDING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.119.120 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft doesn't cite any sources and doesn't give any indication why the topic is notable - a school championship is hardly sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rejected article looked at again

Last April I wrote my first article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation:RICHARD CHARLES BIFFA that was rejected. I didn't get round to revising it until December and since then no one has come back to me about the status of the revisions and whether or not the article is now suitable. I posted another request in early January. I'm not sure what I am now meant to do. Any help appreciated. best Elizabeth Clegg 

Elizabeth Clegg (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-submitted the draft for review (the "decline" message had instructions on re-submission) and fixed the wikilinks. However, to me the draft still seemed to contain significant amounts of off-topic content, for example when it discussed details of Biffa's grandfather that seemed unrelated to Biffa himself. Huon (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yolande Milan Batteau

Regarding article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yolande Milan Batteau I am curious as to best methods for further establishing notability in light of Decline: subject appears to be non-notable person. Cited a number of secondary sources in my article draft but am admittedly new to the process. Would like very much to rectify if possible, there may be additional secondary sources available for further citations if that would help. Any advice much appreciated! Tttsss786 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now you only use your sources for statements such as "Batteau's work was featured in X" - what exactly have the sources to say about Batteau? Vogue, for example, doesn't discuss Batteau at all but effectively uses her as a spokesperson for Callidus Guild. It doesn't even confirm that Batteau owns Callidus Guild but calls her "creative director", devoting not so much as a single sentence to Batteau herself. To be considered notable, Batteau herself must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, where significant coverage is usually interpreted as "multiple sources of at least a paragraph each about Batteau". I cannot easily check the other sources, but if they also mention Batteau only in passing, she may simply not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danny Rogers

Just wondering why the Article 'Danny Rogers' was rejected. What needs to be done for it to be approved? JenaMC (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your sources are primary sources such as press releases; others mention Rogers only in passing or not at all. To be considered notable, a person must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage. Right now the only source that may meet these standards is The Music, but on its own it's probably not enough. Furthermore, Wikipedia content must be verifiable from such sources, and The Resurrection, for example, is not mentioned by any of the sources. Huon (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/88 (archived)

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate the draft for speedy deletion for you. Huon (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nuclear (Destiny's Child song)

Hello i was wondering if you could help me with the page of Love Songs i have given some information on the album and the single called nuclear. i was wondering if you could re work some of it because i know it needs more to it but im not sure what i hope this wont be deleted but will be re worked a little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.75.9 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts won't be deleted unless they're copyright violations or pure advertisement, so that's not a problem. At a glance the draft looked good to me; with sources such as the Daily Mail notability should not be a problem. Amazon and iTunes, however, are not reliable sources, and it would be better to use more reliable alternatives such as, say, AllMusic. It might also be a good idea to remove background information that none of the sources connects to this album. Huon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simin Meydani

Hello, Is there a way to get ride of the Contents box on the page?

Thanks

Deb Dutcher HNRCA (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, there's a magic word for that. However, articles should usually have a table of contents, and I don't know a single example of an article with sufficiently many sections to warrant a table of contents which doesn't have one, nor a reason why it should be suppressed in the first place. Huon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lanarkshire Area Tourism Partnership

Hello,

I have created an article on the Tourism Board for Lanarkshire, which has been declined on the grounds of organisation notability. In order to avoid this I had added external references and one news article which shows why the organisation is of notable stature. Could I please have some clarification on what I need to do in order to get this article published.

Kind regards Lesarbresenhiver (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with your article is you generally need multiple news items for an article to pass. You can use other news sources such as this, this and this. I would integrate information that mentions the Tourism Partnership in those news pieces in your article and resubmit for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wavetrain

This email concerns my submission for a disambiguation page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wavetrain which has been declined. Recently I submitted an article on Periodic travelling waves (which was accepted). In the mathematics literature, the term "wavetrain" is synonymous with "periodic travelling wave" so I thought of submitting a redirection. But in wikipedia "wavetrain" is currently redirected to Wave packet. This caused me to propose a disambiguation, but apparently this is not the right thing. Is it possible to get advice about how to deal with this ? (I am quite new to wikipedia editting and apologise for misunderstanding the correct approach). Thanks very much Jasherratt (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with improper use of Notability as reason to decline an AfC

Hello all,

I have spent the better part of a year working on an article; sourcing/referencing it, maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic dialog, ensuring topics are not covered elsewhere, addressing topics of a very large & important global industry - valued directly in the billions of US $ and trillions of US $ in affected infrastructure & commodities it protects, making no direct marketing type claims. I have attempted to make it factual, on topic and comprehensive, because to separate out the parts into different pages would be the same as putting out unlinked topics, stubs, etc. Prior to going this route, I spent much time working towards cleaning up "problem" articles (Lightning, Lightning_strike, within the subject matter, and had to leave it all together given it turned into a battlefield, where many of my neutral revisions/improvements stand today, however the page[s] are still fraught with credibility & technical issues, where a wiki editor with limited technical knowledge on the subject can trump someone with technical knowledge of the subject simply by claiming CoI.

Immediately, upon submission, it was label "Unnotable"., by an editor who has no knowledge of the subject at all. In looking at the editor's page itself, it is quite obvious there are several pages which he was instrumental in having published, yet their notability is highly questionable, yet given status of a Wiki Editor, notability of said pages was never questioned.

Notability is subjective, this is a fact. What sets the bar for the determination of notability; financial valuation, number of people who know about it, a news story about in a budding online journal... then insignificant, now mainstay (ie Huffington Post), article in an industry/trade journal, etc?

I am looking/hoping for an objective, technical evaluation of my AfC based on its documented merits, not an immediate dismissal by someone who is unaware of its significance in the global arena simple because he/she has no experience with the topic.

p.s. I did clean/remove much superfluous information that was on my sandbox... I was using it as a "holding spot" as I only have one sandbox.... hence all the deletion edits.

Thank you Borealdreams (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small note - I see all these submissions for "people", songs, bands, etc. What if they were played once on air, were a "one hit wonder", performed some small part in a movie, etc. and they were then mentioned in an article somewhere? It is a pretty flimsy evidence of "notable", yet these AfC's are being accepted. Subjectivity, I wish there was better determinations on "Notable" and the ease at which it can be thrown out there. Borealdreams (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The company might actually be notable, but right now it's very hard to tell because many of the sources seem to deal with entirely unrelated matters and don't mention the company. For example, I doubt any of the sources for the "Strike protection and generalized standards" section mention Lightning Eliminators & Consultants. In fact, I just checked a couple of the references at random, and not one of those I looked at (except a few primary sources such as the company's patents and the founder's own book) mentioned the company at all. Using sources that don't mention the article's topic to draw inferences on the topic is considered original synthesis, something we should not engage in. I'd advise you to remove all of the content from the draft that isn't specifically about the company itself - then we might more easily decide if the remaining sources that actually mention it suffice to establish its notability by Wikipedia's standards - whether the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles in technical journals about the company. In particular, if the company is "significant in the global arena", then surely reliable secondary sources exist that explicitly say so.
On an unrelated note, you can easily create additional sub-pages of your user page if you're running out of sandbox space; for example, User:Borealdreams/sandbox 2 (or whatever title you prefer) may serve. Even your original sandbox, User:Borealdreams/sandbox, is by now empty again but for a redirect to the draft that has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, Inc. Huon (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandra Pierce

I get this error message:

This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template.

But I can nowhere find any information about how to do this. I would be SO HAPPY to do it, if only I knew how. I looked at your "help" section and could not find anything with directions as to how to do it. I googled it, to no avail. I tried your live help chat, only find that I could not type a question. All very frustrating. Can someone help, please?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandra Pierce

Thank you,

Mark C Carlson 22:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the template for you with this edit. I believe you have two copies of the draft on that page; you should probably remove one of the two lest the reviewer gets confused. Huon (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huon. I am even worse off than before, though, as I also deleted all of the duplicated material in the edit box. This caused all of the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). markings to be removed. So I recopied the whole article back into it, and the reference markings are there, but none of the footnotes shows up. To make matters worse, the article no longer shows amongst those being in the lineup for review. It's simply disappeared from that list, and I have no idea what to do at this point.

As you might guess, this is my first time.

Mark C Carlson 23:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markccarlson (talk • contribs)

I think I figured it all out--except for why SineBot says my comments were unsigned. I definitely signed them.

Mark C Carlson 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markccarlson (talk • contribs)

The draft's problems indeed seem to be resolved. SineBot requires signatures to link to the user's user page, talk page or contributions page; it won't accept anything else, and indeed our guideline on signatures says they should include at least one such link. The easiest way to sign your posts is by adding four tildes (~~~~). That's how my own signature is generated. The signatures page also explains how to customize the signature if you want it to read "Mark C Carlson" while still linking to User:Markccarlson. Yours, Huon (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


January 15

To know more .

I just want to know the complete birth date of David C. Pack .? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.149.10 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined

I need help in identifying which of the references used for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emil Wolk are not suitable? I would really like to rectify the page and re-submit. Thank you! GemW (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's a fundamental problem with all the references, to be honest. The best reference you've got is probably this one. It's in a national newspaper (generally a reliable, secondary source) and it's a detailed article. Unfortunately, Wolk only has a brief mention in one sentence. You need references like this, but ones that talk in detail about Wolk - ideally with him as the subject of the article, and certainly at least having several lengthy paragraphs saying who he is and what he does. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Munich Legends

Hi there,

My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Munich Legends was moved to the "Article for Creation" page back in July 2012 but says that it is still awaiting review - in what sort of time frame can I expect feedback?

Hingram86 (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NetGain Technologies

Article in question: Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/NetGain Technologies

Hello,

My article was recently reviewed and turned down. As advised by the editor, I have read this page and tried to look at examples of other pages you have approved and denied to give my article the best chance possible.

I work for NetGain Technologies in their marketing department, so I recognize that I have a natural bias. But I was a journalism major in college, so I've tried to use those skills to write as neutrally as possible.

The issues claimed for denial are that the company is not notable enough and that there are not enough external references. I have included 18 citations, most of which are from third party, independent sources (i.e.: newspapers, media websites, etc.).

I recognize that, overall, our company is not huge, nor are we widely known. But within our region and within our industry we are a huge player and rapidly growing. We are the oldest and top managed services provider in Lexington and as sources like CRN Emily.cedargren (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)(computer reseller network - a shoptalk news source) has recognized, we are growing aggressively through acquisitions and making big news that is gaining coverage regularly.[reply]

Could you please provide more specific reasoning as to why my article has been declined? I suppose I can put in more citations, but I'm wondering if that would make a difference... If it would make a difference, how many more citations would I need? 10? 20? Is there anything else I could/should do?

Thanks for the help

Emily.cedargren (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Emily[reply]

  • I'd be interested in Kevin's rationale too, to be honest. There's a lot of news coverage, which is certainly a reliable source, so by a cursory glance it looks notable. The main reason I can think your article would be declined is because a majority of the news articles are simply promotional in nature, along the lines of "NetGain today purchased Joe Blow Tinpot Technologies for £250,000". They don't say what's important or significant about the company - it's just simple fact reporting. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments, Ritchie333. You've summed up my sentiments pretty well! I understand where you're coming from (and where I hope/assume Kevin is coming from...) by mentioning the simple fact reporting. But, in a way, isn't that precisely what makes NetGain Technologies notable as a company? When we do things, not only does the media notice, they publish it. As the employee that writes the press releases about our company news, I can tell you that getting the media to publish anything these days, due to time/space constraints, is quite a challenge! Emily.cedargren (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside opinion. I had a look at this article. The sourcing for notability is very borderline—multiple reprints of the same press releases or "articles" clearly based on them. Some of them are actually contributed directly by the company itself in the community "sharing" sections of the newspaper websites, e.g. this and this or to newspaper blogs that ask businesses to send in their news e.g. this one. Others like PRNews, are overtly publishers of press releases.
But leaving aside the quality of the sourcing, the article would need drastic copy editing for encyclopedic and neutral style. It currently reads like a press release/advertisement, perhaps unsurprisingly, but it's completely inappropriate. Just a few glaring examples:
  1. With these services, small businesses can focus on their mission-critical responsibilities without the hassle of technology.
  2. Through a NetGain Technologies managed security solution, companies not only gain the typical benefits of network security (protection from malware, viruses, etc.) but also management of their network, including testing and uncovering flaw...
  3. Through key partnerships with some of the world leaders in technology, NetGain Technologies has access to a high level of hardware and software solutions on the market.
  4. The NetGain Technologies team boasts some of the best certification levels in the region
What on earth is "boasts" doing in an encyclopedia article? Ditto "team"—blatant PR-speak for "employees" or "staff". It's fine in an advert. It's wildly out of place in an encyclopedia. Trust me, to a neutral observer it screams PR plug as do the other sentences I highlighted. That style of writing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article actually detracts substantially from the subject's image rather than enhancing it, but it's very hard to make companies (or their employees who write their articles here) see that. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And indeed, I have just copyedited this article extensively and left a detailed commentary at Talk:NetGain Technologies. However, my comments above are not remotely related to FA criteria. They highlight how this article violated neutral point of view, one of Wikipedia's most basic and key policies. Whether or not it affects acceptance, COI editors should be made aware when their writing violates that policy, rather than expecting the rest of us to clean up their advertorials. As for notability, it probably just scrapes past. However, in my view the sources (apart from 2 of them) are woefully inadequate. Every one of the remaining 19 are primary sources or clearly based on them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Invention of Magic, and the Light Bulb

Hello I am asking if you could allow my Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Invention_of_Magic,_and_the_Light_Bulb) to be accepted as it is part of my Alevel Media project. It is also created by me, I am in the beginning stages of creating the claymation silent movie. Please reconsider you declination of my movie,

Thank you,

Sean Coyne

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Invention of Magic, and the Light Bulb

(SeanCoyne1 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A better A level media project, if you want Wikipedia to be part of the grading of your project, would be to significantly improve twenty Wikipedia articles. Evidence of your work could be provided by the contributions link for your Wikipedia account. (Or a WP:DIFF link of the changes you made to each article.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the draft, it does not cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports or reviews in reputable film magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. Huon (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to the author's comments on my talk page, and the impression I get is he realises his article is probably not going to pass AfC at the moment. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Van Mildert Boat Club

Hi, I'm trying to submit this article for creation. However, I'm told it lacks notability by the reviewer. I believe the article has a number of references from secondary sources and I am working on adding more. Also the article currently has more sources than similar rowing articles such as Lancaster University Boat Club,Clare Boat Club and so on for other Durham, Oxford and Cambridge rowing clubs, so i'm not sure what to do. If you could help I would be very grateful. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the secondary sources? I'm only seeing sources that are connected in some way with the organisation.
Think about books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


January 16

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Vic329

My attempt at creating a bio here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vic329/sandbox has been rejected several times on grounds I don't really understand.

The academic notability criteria state that:

"7.1 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

I have referenced my bio with a number of links directly to citations, interviews, quotes and articles about my research in national and international TV, print media and radio. I've also linked to Scholar and to my university research age to list the academic papers that are the reason for these quotes and interviews. Hard to see why reviewers claim that the sources are not independent, or that the achievements are not notable. I have no influence over the editorial content of UK national newspapers and TV channels, but they have cited or interviewed me frequently.

I've had a conversation with live help, but these guys just told me that I'm "reading the criteria wrongly". Yet there are academic bios already up there without anything like the referencing support or media reach that I've provided.

I'm confused. Any help appreciated. I'm very much a novice at Wikipedia.

(Vic329 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • I've had a quick look through the references, and my impression is that Hackley seems to be best known as a "rent-a-quote" (for want of a better phrase) for the national media. There's nothing much about him as a person. Still, if he's often quoted in reliable sources, of which a wide selection are given, then I think he passes the notability threshold and should have an article. One word of caution, if you are Chris Hackley (as you seem to suggest you are by referring to "my bio"), you should be aware that autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If, heaven forbid, something unpleasant happens to you and the tabloid press all get hold of it, it can appear in your Wikipedia article, and provided it appears in sufficient sources, you won't be able to remove it. So be careful what you wish for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Newsbytes News Network

Hello,

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Newsbytes_News_Network

I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Newsbytes&title=Special%3ASearch contains many sources that cite Newsbytes stories over the years. The Washington Post took the publication offline in 2002, so it no longer lives in a keyword searchable form. What do you need from me further in order to prove that there are enough secondary sources? Should I look throughout the web for organizations that cite Newsbytes stories? Let us know what you need please. Thank you

outsideinout173.129.65.86 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To establish Newsbytes' notability we don't just need others reproducing Newsbytes stories, but Newsbytes itself must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and those sources must form the basis of the article's content. Major parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all (and are thus unverifiable), and of the sources I could easily check online, one was a press release (which isn't a reliable independent source) and the other provided very little detail and didn't even confirm everything it's cited for. Huon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stu Williamson

Hello im not sure why but it seems like i have submitted my article twice even though its only supposed to once. wanted to let you know so it doesnt cause any confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuwilliamson (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/The Edgo Group

I have now added a few more sources to my article.

I have read the guidance and feel the article meets the notability criteria - I do have third party sources which support notability.

I am finding this a bit frustrating - I have found many examples of organisations, in the same sector, who have a weaker claim to notability and weaker referencing yet have entries in Wikipedia - for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_Oil. The same standards don't seem to apply to all.

Thanks Ruedebille (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the third party sources suffice to establish the company's notability. Some are just directory entries, which don't contribute much to notability. One source is an Edgo press release, which isn't a third party source and should be removed outright. The remainder mention the company in passing while discussing something else, and they provide very few details about it. For example, which source confirms that Edgo is "the largest water well drilling contractor in the region"? I didn't see that in any of the secondary sources. Huon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/humanocracia

Veliam21 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Baze Article Revised

I recently revised references on the Josh baze Article that was declined due to sources. I need help submitting it to the queue!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Josh_Baze — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartelMGMT (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the draft for you. The "submission declined" message had instructions for resubmission ("When you are ready to resubmit, click here"), or you could have resubmitted it manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top.
On an unrelated note, quite a few of the references, including Baze's personal website, his HuffPo author profile or YouTube videos he uploaded himself, are not the reliable, independent sources we're looking for. I'd remove those outright. Huon (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soccer For Peace

Hello, I made changes to the previously declined: Articles for creation/Soccer For Peace . I posted these changes but they have not been re-reviewed. I am new to Wikipedia. Wondering if someone can please help me. Thank you. Gtn107 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article for creation\Jodhpur National University

I request to review my this page as early as possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ImmortalSpartans/sandbox ImmortalSpartansImmortalSpartans (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have blanked that page, and it didn't provide any significant coverage of the university in reliable, independent sources such as news reports. Huon (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing title of article

I created the article entitled "Act for the Better Regulation and Government in the Merchants Service". As I've been working on a revision of the article, I realized that a more proper title would be "Act for the Better Regulation and Government of Seamen in the Merchants Service". How can I go about changing this title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenndog (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to the correct title: Act for the Better Regulation and Government of Seamen in the Merchants Service. Moving pages requires an autoconfirmed account, that is, one which has made at least ten edits and is at least four days old. Huon (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alialujah Choir (band)

Can you please let me know if the submitted stub Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alialujah Choir (band) is still in the queue for review. Thank you.Cameraf72 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't, and for all I can tell it never was before. The "not submitted for review" message had instructions to that effect: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page". I've submitted it for you now, it should be reviewed shortly. Huon (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Review of User:JDavidovits/sandbox

I have been mandated by the "Geopolymer scientists community" to write a totally new article on "Geopolymers" that must replace the existing one, which is considered as being inaccurate. See the discussion at the last conference "Geopolymer Camp 2012" , second video at http://www.geopolymer.org/camp/gp-camp-2012 .

Review of User:JDavidovits/sandbox

Prof. Joseph Davidovits (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, feel free to rewrite, edit, or add to the Geopolymers article yourself. It isn't necessary to create a new page to replace the old one. Bear in mind, though, that no one owns a Wikipedia article, and that other editors may edit, add to, revert, delete, or challenge your contributions. You might find this helpful. Alexrexpvt (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shree Group of Companies

Shree Group of Companies: 

       Shree groups included with Shree Agro Exports, Shree Transports, Shree Earth Movers and Shree Eco products.
       Shree groups initially started up with Earth Movers and Transports by Karthi and Sasi Kumar as the proprietor and expand the company by including partnership with Vengatachalam. 
       Now Shree groups get into Agro products Exports activities and Eco friendly products productions.
        The firm consist of three active partners (Karthi,Vengatachalam,Sasikumar) and an sleeping partner Keerthana.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shree Group of Companies

Shree Group of Companies: 

       Shree groups included with Shree Agro Exports, Shree Transports, Shree Earth Movers and Shree Eco products.
       Shree groups initially started up with Earth Movers and Transports by Karthi and Sasi Kumar as the proprietor and expand the company by including partnership with Vengatachalam. 
       Now Shree groups get into Agro products Exports activities and Eco friendly products productions.
        The firm consist of three active partners (Karthi,Vengatachalam,Sasikumar) and an sleeping partner Keerthana.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeerthuSubu (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submission

I have revised the problem of my articles and have added necessary citations to it. I wanted to re-submit the revised article but I do not know how. As in I couldn't find the 'submit button'. May I know what should I do? Thank you very much for your help.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=533710948"