Wikipedia:Drawing board/Archives/2009/December

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Tightly Constrained

A tightly constrained idea or theory is something that conforms with other proven ideas as well as being consistent with an experts view and acumen of a subject.

This is possibly not encyclopedic, or perhaps only possibly worthy of being a stub, however, if anyone would care to comment on the relevance of the phrase and page value/merit, if positive, I will research further to find supportive references as well as creatives.

Trumanhw (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary can contain this short definition without any problem however. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. Wiktionary it is --however, I don't see a link to upload it to. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumanhw (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use this link: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Tightly_constrained&action=edit&redlink=1 However I must admit I don't understand how to format definitions there. Graeme Bartlett (talk)

Marvin Mercado

I just deleted Marvin Mercado (Asian Boyz 1226); it was tagged as an attack page and had that tone. I checked the second source and Mercado's name didn't appear, so like the tagger, I thought this was just another "my mate is a gangsta" article. But the creator of the article complained on my talk page, and when I went back and checked the first source, it does look like this merits an article, although we're going to have to do something about the tone. This was the deleted article:

Marvin Mercado, also known as Shy boy Mercado was a Asian Boyz .feared leader whom was connected to multiple murders, robberies, and attempted murders. Although Asian Boyz, is primarly a Cambodian and Viet gang. There were still many other asian members, one of them, happens to be Marvin Mercado, a Filipino member, who fled to the Philipines but soon caught after being aired on Americas Most Wanted saturday night show.

Sources: http://www.amw.com/fugitives/brief.cfm?id=24092

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/02/local/me-13073

What can we do with this one? - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that AMW is a claim of importance, and also shows half notability. And the rest of the notability is proved with [1] [2] [3] [4]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting feedback on article draft

I've been involved in the magazine industry for a long time and I've taken a new interest to digital magazines - those that have decided to forgo the high cost of print and publish a digital-only magazine. I came upon Exec Digital, which has done just that. I believe a company like Exec Digital is defining the direction that the magazine industry is headed. Being digital-only allows it to sustain costs better than traditional print magazines. It has US, Canada and UK editions. And its publisher, White Digital Media, also puts out trade magazines with the same digital premise.

I've created the article in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jseditor/Sandbox.

Can you please tell me how I can get feedback from Wikipedia editors?

Jseditor (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One idea of references is to show notability. The [5] ref only mentions Exec digital as an aside, so it does not prove notability. [6] looks like self published info, although I am not sure of the whole purpose of the page, it is not about exec digital it just has a section on them. This info would not be independent, as the company would have chosedn themselves to participate in NY Xpo for Business and so also does not show notability. [7] looks to be independent enough, but only has a small paragraph on the topic. I think you need to find some external reference that supports your idea that they are setting the direction, as that is your main claim of importance. As it stands the article reads OK, neutral enough, but there needs to be more claims and proofs of some notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schnitzel Records

I am a big music fan and setting up my own record label. I've come across Schnitzel Records a few times as they have signed some really good bands, and believe they deserve a page on wikipedia. Feedback please :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlitzFact/my_sandbox

BlitzFact (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article looks quite nice. However the intro does not say why the company is important, as you did just above. If you put some statement like that, but in a more formal tone, the page will be ready to go into article space. However I hope this is not your label, where WP:COI applies! Also there is a fair bit of space around the names in the tables, this is unnecessary. I linked a few bands that seemed to have articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English (honors only & per.5)

diana brown is an alumni of Burbank High School. she was the top performer in the girls varsity team. she had great team spirit although she tended to elbow Remi in the face. her math grades were not as good as she would have liked it to be. As mrs. tindell said, "not so hot." she was also known for her ~~good~~ hilarious sense of humor. her and nicole joonhad an attraction to several foreign clubs including the Philippine & the Armenian club. Some of the nicknames she was known for were, Dirty Diana, Bob, BOB #287, bobby, sev brown, charlie, and diane. She was a very hard working student and waaaaay smarter than her "brother." Her hobbies were rollerblading, drawing, and playing basketball. she is still living and is turning 15 on december 27! remember it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sev brown (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diana, this is not suitable as an article in Wikipedia. WP:Notability is not asserted. User:Sev brown could contain some of this material about your interests, but not the negative things about others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Adamschragin (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is nicely formatted. However there does not seem to be claims of importance in it. Why should this be mentioned in an encyclopedia? There is a specific guideline WP:Band to describe what it takes for musicians to get an article in Wikipedia. If you can find articles written in newspapers out of the local area, or major magazines, that will prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does a product creator write about a product and all competitors as a survey of the field?

I am a creator of a speech driven product that reads emails/blogs/... infinear.com Other companies in this area are goog,voiceonthego,dial2do,shoutnow,ahamobile. I wrote a short article on why handsfree web access is imp. It was deleted in 10 secs!! As an ad? I have never seen an ad that lists ALL competitors and doesnt discuss the benefits/pitfalls of any one. A survey does this. How do I write a wikipedia survey of commercial products (incl. mine)?
How is this NOT an ad I wrote EXACTLY like this.

Sanjkris (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You article Infinear was definitely ad like. The first sentence you wrote is OK: "Infinear is a cloud hosted service for cell phone users." The second sentence tell a person how to get the product (promotion). An encyclopedia article should not talk about "you". It should not describe how to take advantage of a product. It should not list a phone number to contact. Use of "parts of your daily life that could benefit" and "is more convenient" looks promotional. Instead of this you should be talking about the company, why it is important, when did it form, how much revenue, how is it owned. Products and services, and where it is, that sort of thing. Te competitors is just a list of web links, it is best to put in internal Wikipedia links using eg [[dial2do]]. Try making your next proposal at Sanjkris/sandbox and ask for an opinion. Then it is more likely to survive. Unfortunately you have a COI making it hard to write about your product. It may be better for you to write about the competitors! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I guess a sandbox article with no reference to my product MAY last > 10 seconds :-)

If you can write about a product in general, and make it educational without being a how-to, and without mentioning any competitors or any company at all, that would be a way to get an article included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback for article draft

I've created an article in my sandbox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonrichey/Sandbox.

I am a full time employee of the company that is the subject of the article. I do not own shares of the company and I am not being compensated for writing the article.

I am posting on the drawing board to make sure the point of view in the article is sufficiently neutral to overcome the my conflict of interest.

Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Jonrichey (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article proposal looks quite nice with references and sections. And it does appear non promotional. However why should this company have an article in Wikipedia? WP:CORP is the guideline on this sort of thing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. The subject is notable insofar as "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." However, it's not completely clear whether the attention comes from "media of limited interest and circulation." Most of the coverage comes from furniture industry trade publications, such as Furniture Today, which is read mostly by retailers and manufacturers of home decor and has a weekly paid circulation of approximately 20,000. There may be a clearer case that the angelo:HOME and Cornerture products are notable. I've added some external links to demonstrate their notability.

Thanks again. Jonrichey (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback for Draft Article: Women Employed

Hi, I am working on a draft article about an organization called Women Employed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wemhoffj/Subpage:_Women_Employed_article

I would like some feedback on whether you think this article meets the criteria of notability and neutrality. Athough there have been a number of news articles about the organization over the years (see the "See Also" section). I would appreciate any feedback before I move forward with this article.

Thanks,

(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thoughts after a quick look:

The article is at User:Wemhoffj/Subpage: Women Employed article, not the link you gave above.
Much of the article is copy & pasted from http://www.womenemployed.org, which isn't allowed. You'll need to write the article's content in your own words.
The bulk of the references are to http://www.womenemployed.org. You'll need to find references outside that site, including third-party references that aren't hosted at that site.
You wrote above, "I want to tell a news about that all women in "Rural" areas must be educated…" Wikipedia isn't for spreading the news about an organization.

Also, are you User:Wemhoffj or are you User:magesh215? Or are both accounts the same person? If so, you'll need to pick one account and stick with it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will work to revise the article. Also, I am User:Wemhoffj. I do not know who User:magesh215 is but they edited my initial inquiry and added a bunch of stuff about women in rural areas and education that was not in my original post. I have deleted it so that only my original inquiry remains. Sorry for the confusion.

Wemhoffj (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final sections of this article are not up to Wikipedia standards. For example, See also is a list of other Wikipedia articles related to the article, but not linked in the article itself. It does not contain external links. Look at any Featured Article from the home page, and you will see how these sections are done. Also, I am doubtful that the long time-line list is appropriate.