Help desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia 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.

October 29

incomplete information on an article.

I am referring to Carrie Underwood's 'See you again' Wikipedia page, under the heading 'Video'.

The article did a fine job detailing EVERY SINGLE clip that was featured...all except for one. The clip of the dog and woman being reunited after 3.5 years from PRISON.

I suppose it was a silly mix up.

Or is Carrie Underwood unbiased enough to feature MY VIDEO.....and Wikipedia, not so much??

Please dont leave my story out.

Thank you.

Bree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.156.105 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What page is this about? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear, See You Again (Carrie Underwood song).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) and (without actually knowing which article, it sounds to me like it the issue is not the "missing" coverage about the scene with the dog, but the excessively detailedtrivial coverage of every other scene! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length

Hello! I've read the instructions at WP:LEADLENGTH and I still don't have a clear idea. The given unit ("x paragraphs") is quite ambiguous, becase the standard length of a paragraph is not defined. Can you give me an approximation of the number of characters / lines required for the intro of the article Kingdom of Hungary? For the no of lines please consider the current dimension of the in the right of the page. 79.117.179.202 (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of counting words and lines - the question is whether the lead adequately summarises the entire article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be defensible to roughly double the length of the current lead section. BUT, as noted, the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. I don't think the current lead section does that: it's basically a list of the areas covered by the kingdom. Nothing about dynasties, nothing about being part of Austria-Hungary for quite a while, etc., etc. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Book Creator - My book of over 300 pages just disappeared! What do I do? I didn't cancel it! Please Help

re Book Creator - My book of over 300 pages just disappeared! What do I do? I didn't cancel it! Please Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.12.189 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK only registered users can create books. As an IP user there is no way to reliably identify you so the system will never be able to tell what book belongs to you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just registered, but autoconfirmed.--ukexpat (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book creator was reconfigured so that newly-registered accounts can save books as user sub-pages. bugzilla:46944. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it allow IPs to even begin creating a book only to drop them without warning by simply failing to save it? Perhaps this should be another item for bugzilla. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) From what I've just read and tested, it appears only registered, autoconfirmed users can save books in the book namespace. Registered but non-autoconfirmed users can save books in their userpage. IPs cannot save them at all, but can create them and download them or order them from pediapress. It looks to me like the problem is that if you're not saving as you go, and get a "loss of session data", or if a dynamic IP user's address changes in the middle, or if there's any kind of refresh, etc., the book will be gone, and even worse, IPs aren't told they can't save up front so they may work on it with that intention. I'm thinking we don't do enough in the front end of the book interface to tell people about this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drummondville Voltigeurs

Hello,

I'm the operations assistant of the Drummondville Voltigeurs and we've noticed a mistake on the Wikipedia page concerning our Team.

there's something wrong on the page : Drummondville Voltigeurs

It says : The Drummondville "Drumsticks" ... should be Drummondville Voltigeurs. I don't know where this word came from. Could you please fix this issue?

Thank you very much. Annie St-Amand 205.237.45.55 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed by an IP editor; I've reverted the change. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger problem is notability. I have doubts whether a junior ice hockey team is notable, nor does the article cite a single source.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information in Article

Hi,

I want to bring to your attention to the article on K. C. Mammen Mappillai. In the family section, the wrong K.M Cherian has been referenced to. ( Link provided is wrong) Dr. K.M cherian who is a leading Cardio surgeon in India is not the son of Mr. K.C Mammen Mappillai as written in this article.

Best,

Sam Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unlinked that name, and the others that were redlinks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated citations in infoboxes

I fix a lot of broken references, but one problem has me stumped. In Assassin's Creed II and James Deen, repeated citations in infoboxes show up in the reference section with "Cite error: The named reference ... was invoked but never defined". I've had a look in Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text, but everything seems fine with the repeated citations. They just seem to fail when repeated in an infobox. Is this a bug, and if so, is there a workaround? Thanks for the help, Ruby Murray 14:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been fixed in this edit by Trappist the monk. I don't understand the effect the change made. DES ^(talk) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(The above note has been accidentally removd in this edit, restored now. CiaPan (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

James Deen fixed by moving <ref> with a template in it outside an infobox. [1] --CiaPan (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(cont) It seems to me the parameter alias you used to define a <ref> is simply ignored by the infobox. I've tried to move the full ref definition from alias to number_of_films and it worked just fine. --CiaPan (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think the actual problem at James Deen was that yesterday's edit to {{Infobox adult biography}} accidentally dropped support for the "alias" parameter. I have fixed that, so the alias parameter should work again, with any references it defines. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to try moving the full reference outside of the infobox. Thanks CiaPan and John for your help with this. Ruby Murray 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Page - one is incorrect

Hi there,

We (Daler-Rowney)seem to have two pages on Wikipedia and really we only need one. One of the pages has a hypen between Daler and Rowney, like this: daler-rowney Daler-Rowney and the other does not (daler rowney) Daler Rowney. The page with the hyphen is correct but the other page could either be redirected to the correct page or could be deleted. Could you tell me how to do this please?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRwebmaster (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daler Rowney was actually a redirect to George Rowney. I have edited it to redirect to Daler-Rowney.--ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a few tags on the article - the major editor has an obvious COI, the tone and content is highly advertorial, there are no secondary independent sources and no assertion of notability. It is IMHO very close to A7 or G11 Speedy deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to merge George Rowney into Daler-Rowney - that should deal with the A7 issue, supplying J. M. W. Turner probably counts an indication of importance or significance. The G11 issue can be dealt with by further editing and there must be more sources out there somewhere.--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looking for stats

I was wondering how many of the articles I tagged for deletion actually get deleted. So I went to the deletion log tag - right? And there I got 1 article returned. Why do I not see anything else? I know I've speedied more than that - even just today (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=pagetriage-deletion&user=Antiqueight&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=). I know I can go through my contributions but I was curious about this...Any ideas? -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. The log goes back to September 2012, and does include entries with redlinks, which eliminates at least one theory of mine. If you don't get any answer here, then WP:VPT is the place to ask next. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my first thought was that everything I tagged was deleted! Then I thought that was unlikely so I checked other users. And while the log goes back a ways, my tagging is less than 2 months old...So I was stumped. I'll try WP:VPT tomorrow though it does seem like you will be the only reply here :-) -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used Page Curation for other deletion tags than [2]? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but certainly not very often. I currently tend to go with twinkle or huggle for deletion tags. I found page curation hard because I was new. It was less complicated to go for vandalism and obvious problems - as the particular deletion tag above indicated. I was (and still am) unsure about notability.. Is that it - is it only showing page curation deletion tags? Is there any other way I can get what I have tagged and what has been deleted so I can check my accuracy on this? (simply without going through all my contributions?)-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiqueight: If you send me an email, I'll email you back an Excel spreadsheet with your deleted contributions log in it. From that you can count your deletions (after removing the false positives – pages you edited that were deleted not based on your taggings). Since you always use "speedy" in your edit summary, you can then cross-reference against all pages you've tagged for speedy deletion that still exist, from this search (plus this and this). You have no others in any namespaces but possibly for some in the user talk namespace. Unfortunately, in that namespace the search finds all of your warnings where you used "speedy" in the edit summary, so you might miss a few there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complicated than going through your contributions, because edits of deleted pages aren't included in Special:Contributions, and aren't visible to non-admin editors. (The rationale is a diff [aka "contribution" aka "edit"] can be linked to, and so if diffs related to deleted articles were visible, much of the point of deleting the article - copyright infringement, WP:BLP problems, whatever - would be ineffective.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True - I won't be able to tell for sure if my tag was the reason the page was deleted but it should give me a lead on my tagging ability if I tagged it for deletion and the page is gone..Not perfect..And really all I was going to do if it wasn't possible to check somehow in an automated fashion was to go through my contributions which show a red link when the page is gone..The snottywong tool mentioned above should help anyway too - I can check back my last 500 edits and see if I am doing ok or not..If there are loads of articles surviving my deletion tagging then I'm off on the wrong track after all..

Thanks for the help!-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 01:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - hmm, that tool just shows what survived...still, good to see what I shouldn't have tagged..-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing up references

Hi there, I'm entering a new page. thing is I don't know what you mean by references and sources. The guy I'm writing about is actually in contact with me so I'm getting it mostly from emails that he's sending me. He'd like me to write it for him. I offered, he deserves it like he's quite famous now. So, what do I put as it's a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuGauntlett (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read about reliable sources, you will see that to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirement we need significant mentions of the subject in published sources independent of the subject. Information that you have received directly from the subject counts as original research, and is not acceptable as a source for a Wikipedia article. I'll put some more useful links on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The astronomical researcher Adnan Al-Shawafi reveals the secret behind the movement of planet Pluto

“The planet of Pluto is a planet that is coupled with its moon Charon and it rotates around a phantom mass outside its center at a distance of 5,400 km, and that Pluto is subject to all laws in the area of astronomy and physics" Researcher :Adnan Ali Abdulkhleq Al-Shawafi

I hope your kind to publish the above subject How the researcher concluded this discovery The above-mentioned discovery is just a result reached through eight new compound laws based on physic-mathematical formulas proven by mathematical logic that cannot be disputed. These rulesreveals the secret of universal balance from the moon up to the galaxy and a key for new scientific horizon to discover the matter or the universe without exaggeration since the astronomy science needs such input for the time being. In addition, I wish to table Adnan’s laws and formulas on universal balance for discussion by internationally-recognized judgment institutions and experts either through correspondence or face to face! Best regards Adnan Al-Shawafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alshawafi (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Submit your findings to a respected astronomy journal. Wikipedia can't write about it until it has been published in reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing new in what you describe as a "discovery", Isaac Newton explained it hundreds of yeas ago. Western children learn this stuff in high school. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charon (moon)#Classification as a moon or dwarf planet even has a nice animation showing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's not original research, and it's already been published, and it is not a secret. Pluto and Charon do rotate around a center point, and Pluto is subject to all laws of astronomy and physics. Just because something is worded strangely doesn't make it original research, but it is better to state something that is attested by reliable sources in the way that the reliable sources state it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "new compound laws" probably either aren't new, or are original restatements of reliably stated wording of known laws. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possible gender categorisation issue brewing...

I probably don't need to remind most readers of the huge "Women authors category" scandal of a few months ago. Please take a look at Special:Contributions/NorthernThunder. The problem is that Category:Women in politics is basically a container for hundreds of subcategories, no individual female politicians are directly listed in this category. Contrast that with Category:Men in politics which is a relatively "crude" unsorted arbitrary list of male politicians and the category is being considered for deletion. The absence of equal treatment might just blow up into a new media storm. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 29#Category:Men in politics, and I strongly encourage anyone interested in the issue to post at that location, not here. (I also note that the category being proposed for deletion is new, and has only 155 entries.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

expired copyright?

For a proposed article about an author and public figure, now deceased, I would like to use a photo of him published on the back page of his novel in 1952. The photo has a credit to the photographer, but no copyright notice. I would not post this on Wikimedia but only in the article. May I?

The publisher no longer exists and the holder of the copyright on the novel is dead.Paul D Nelson (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good question for WP:MCQ. That's where all the copyright experts hang out. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general for a work published in 1952, the copyright will have expired unless it was renewed. if it was renewed, it will still be under copyright. However if it was never published, different rules apply. Those get Life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from date of creation if no author can be identified. So an unpublished photo (or text) from 1952 would still be under copyright. See this page for more details. DES ^(talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is still under copyright, someone owns it. The death of the original copyright owner just means that it would have become an asset of the deceased's estate just like their other assets.--ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with DES. I believe that if it was first published after 1922, it is still covered by copyright. But you should check with an expert. Maproom (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the source that I listed? I did a good deal of copyright stuff for Distributed Proofreaders, and while I am not a lawyer, consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject. i can tell you that at Project Gutenberg adding items published after 1923 but not after 1964 that did not have a copyright renewal was a MAJOR part of the activity. The source I linked to says "1923 through 1963 / Published with notice but copyright was not renewed / Copyright Term: None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration" with a note that says " A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960), reprinted in Library of Congress Copyright Office. Copyright law revision: Studies prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-sixth Congress, first [-second] session. (Washington: U. S. Govt. Print. Off, 1961), p. 220. A good guide to investigating the copyright and renewal status of published work is Samuel Demas and Jennie L. Brogdon, "Determining Copyright Status for Preservation and Access: Defining Reasonable Effort," Library Resources and Technical Services 41:4 (October, 1997): 323-334. See also Library of Congress Copyright Office, How to investigate the copyright status of a work. Circular 22. [Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 2004]. The Online Books Page FAQ, especially "How Can I Tell Whether a Book Can Go Online?" and "How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed?", is also very helpful." alsoi this site says "Published from 1923 - 63 / 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain" this site shows a similar rule. This site says "Published, or copyright registered, between 1950 and the end of 1963 / 28 years for first term, and could have been renewed for 67 years (total of 95 years). ... If the copyright was not timely renewed, copyright expired at the end of the first 28 year term." http://chart.copyrightdata.com/#top shows a similar rule. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DES. I was unaware of this, and find it very interesting. I clearly have more reading to do. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Picasso error

You have his second wife dying at age 12.

Pablo Picasso Portrait of Pablo Picasso, 1908-1909, anonymous photographer, Musée Picasso, Paris...jpg Pablo Picasso, 1908-1909 Birth name Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso[1] Born 25 October 1881 Málaga, Spain Died 8 April 1973 (aged 91) Mougins, France Spouse Olga Khokhlova (1918–55) Jacqueline Roque (1961–73) Nationality Spanish Field Painting, Drawing, Sculpture, Printmaking, Ceramics Training José Ruiz y Blasco (father), Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando Movement Cubism Works Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) Guernica (1937) The Weeping Woman (1937) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.70.232 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't her life span, its the years they spent married. uhhlive (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of file

I have uploaded a wrong file and I want to delete it, but don't know how. Could you please explain it? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag it with {{db-author}}, or {{db-g7}}. - David Biddulph (talk) 9:12 pm, Today (UTC+0)

(edit conflict) Is that File:Dilbilim Arastirmalari 1990 Cover page.jpg? In any case simply edit the page for whatever file it is and add {{db-self}}. An admin will look it over and almost surely delete it fairly soon, how soon depending on how many other items are waiting to be considered for deletion. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: {{db-author}}, {{db-g7}}, and {{db-self}} are alternate names for the same template, and you can use any of them with the same effect. DES ^(talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely wrong file and I will put one of these tags on the page, thanks everybody. Egeymi (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing help

An article subject which I am affiliated with, Studley, Inc., recently had the majority of it's content removed and has been reduced to a stub. I firmly believe the subject is meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and that all of the references were valid and should not have been taken down. I am asking for the help of somebody to please restore the most recent content on that page. From there I am not opposed to the necessary measures of having any inadequate references removed or correcting any 'advertising' language. Please help. Thank you. RyLaughlin (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some pretty aggressive deletions - see this version, for comparison. The deletion of the following citation, and the related information in the article, for example, seems to me very questionable:

Hellman, Peter (2004). Shaping the Skyline: The World According to Real Estate Visionary Julien Studley. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0471657662.

John Wiley & Sons isn't exactly a vanity publisher. I'm going to ping User:Justlettersandnumbers, who did the massive deletion, to see if he/she would explain why he/she thinks a totally gutted article is preferable to one with COI and vanity issues. (It has been more than six weeks since the massive deletion, so it doesn't look as if he/she is going to do any repairs.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who, unlike John Broughton, are not necessarily familiar with the background here: COIN discussions are Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 64#RyLaughlin and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 66#RyLaughlin; User talk:RyLaughlin has a number of attempts to engage with him by various editors, including myself. I don't disagree with RyLaughlin's suggestion that the company is probably notable. I don't see anything particularly "aggressive" in the edits I made to the article, but am open to discussion on that. Wikipedia articles are supposed to evolve by interested but uninvolved editors adding relevant material to them. COI editing disables that process. The article will doubtless evolve over time. Of course I have no objection to the Hellman source being added back to it if that seems desirable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sentences in the above noted version reads: "Additionally, Studley has represented major law firms in every market in the United States,[19] including each of the top five of The American Lawyer's 2013 Top 100 Law Firms.[20][21][22][23][24][25]" That appears to be synthesis of published material that advances a position (e.g. linking to seven published materials to advance the position that Studley has represented major law firms in every market in the United States, including each of the top five of The American Lawyer's 2013 Top 100 Law Firms). I have no objection to some of the material being returned to the article so long as the person returning the material to the article confirms that each reference used to support the material summarizes the information and rather than synthesizes it. It also seems fine to leave the change as is and let uninvolved editors add in sourced material over time. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deleted text closer, I don't think any of it should be returned: "the worldwide (implied) pioneer of tenant representation," (there's no sourcing to support "pioneer") "handed the rein" (p.r. speak), "next generation of leaders" (cite? how do you know they are "leaders"?), "spearheaded by" (P.R. speak), "Their services include acquisition and disposition, financial and strategic consulting, site planning and selection, transaction negotiation, design and construction consulting, strategic consulting, project management, planning and forecasting, cost control, implementation management, development services, supply chain and logistics, strategic planning and finance, incentives maximization, portfolio management and lease administration." (are you sure you didn't leave anything out? Where is the independent sourcing to support this? Without independent sourcing, there is no way for Wikipedia editors to know objectively whether Wikipedia readers will care for such information.), "represented many notable companies" (what makes them notable and where is the source for that?), "Studley pioneered the commercial real estate market survey"(pioneered? really? is that a fact capable of being proven true and established as being true or p.r. speak? where's the sourceing); "Studley also boasts two winners" (So Wikipedia also should boasts the two Studley winners as well). -- Jreferee (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please assist me with edits? I will be happy to supply primary and secondary sources. I don't think the page should be deleted because of an editors inexperience with Wikipedia. There was no harm meant to be done here. 206.17.130.140 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If editors independent of the company supply information supported by published reliable sources independent of the subject, and if this information demonstrates notability, then this can be noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studley, Inc. and the deletion nomination would be unlikely to succeed. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you will post links to online sources at Talk:Studley, Inc., along with a suggestion of what those sources support, i will be happy to look at them and edit the article if I find relevant content. For thisa purpose, it is highly desirable that all or most of the sources be reliable sources, in this case meaning that they are independent of the article's subject, published, not blogs or otherwise self-published, with some reputation for accuracy, and that they discuss the subject in some depth -- directory listings are of no use at all, and mere one-sentence passing mentions are of almost no use. Ideally there should be several paragraphs or more in a source that discuss the subject. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer DES, I've gone ahead and done just that. I tried to be thorough and posted several links, so please don't interpret that as me expecting you to cite each one. I appreciate any time you put in. RyLaughlin (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]