Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Discussion Room

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Discussion Room! You can discuss those final remaining submissions on a backlog or current page and get some other opinions! Please make sure to link to the submission in question in order to help your fellow editors find it.

EMB Consultancy LLP

The submitted entry reads like spam, but the company could be notable enough for inclusion. Any input? SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rewrite it to be spamless, please go ahead, but otherwise decline the spam. Graeme Bartlett 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure: Ashake

I wasn't entirely sure about this one: but put it down as not notable: [1] PhilB ~ ^T/_C 14:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-06-02-early

I just finished clearing this page as part of my first of many services to the AFC Project. Was just wondering what to do with it now, will it automatically be taken off the register or do I need to do something with it? Thanks. Mattie ^TK 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you did the right things - marked the top template complete and for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List-2006-06 marked the file as complete. The contributions can stay as they are forever, unless copyright violations or attacks need to be removed. It is disappointing to find so few contributions to accept, however in stuff this old the contributor has often figured out how to make the article themselves! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Wilkinson

I am not sure about this one. In my view, to be notable, an archaeologist would have to find something major in a dig, and so far all I have been able to find on this person is books the person has written. Since I can't make up my mind about notability, I am opening the table for discussion on this. ArcAngel (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-05-02#Richard_H._Wilkinson:

The guiding document is Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or possibly Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you decline it, decline it "without prejudice" and explain that if the article is rewritten with clear evidence that the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or WP:BIO are met then it will be re-created. The two sources given are not sufficient to make this person stand out from the crowd of other academics. Your average academic and even most university department heads with multiple books to their credit are not notable enough for Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if contributors are allowed to participate in this discussion but if it is permitted I would like to respectfuly point out that there is a great deal of inconsistency in this situation. If you look at the Wikipedia page of Egyptologists it lists a number of people with their own Wikipedia pages who are only assistant or associate professors (Prof. Wilkinson is a Regents professor and is internationally famous). Some are listed with no archaeological work at all and some with pages are Professor Wilkinson's students and claim him as their professor. See for example Professor Michael Hasel (who mentions Professor Wilkinson as one of his teachers) Jacque Kinnaer - only lists his webpage and some articles, Josef Wegner - about all it says is he is an associate professor. I tried to write a short summary on Professor Wilkinson as he is listed in the Wikipedia list of Egyptologists but there is no article about him while he is far more well known than many who are listed and have pages. I would be glad to try Anyway, If I have time maybe I'll try to rewrite the article this summerAnyway, If I have time maybe I'll try to rewrite the article this summerto improve the contribution on him if necessary, but please keep the pages already in Wikipedia in mind to be fair. -- previous unsigned comment at 22:55, 6 May 2008 by 150.135.114.232 - please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end

The Wikipedia article on "Distinguished Professors"/Regents Professors states "At many universities the honorary title of Distinguished Professor is given to a small number of members of the faculty who are recognized by colleagues throughout the world as leaders in their fields." This is not "your average academic". -- previous unsigned comment at 14:18, 7 May 2008 by 150.135.114.235 - please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end

I don't know if contributors are allowed to participate in this discussion - you are allowed.

You said he is a Regents professor and is internationally famous. If you can establish that a Regents Professorship is a big deal outside his institution, or that he is internationally famous in his field relative to other Egyptologists or that he is internationally famous outside is field relative to others who do whatever he is famous for, that would be a great start.

Regarding inconsistencies: Yes, that is a problem across all of Wikipedia. There is a lot of stuff that, if created today, would probably be deleted without opposition or deleted by consensus after a discussion or even quickly deleted for failing to assert notability. I would urge you to study the notability guidelines, find those that do not provide a good claim for their notability, and either add to the articles so the articles clearly claim notability or use WP:PROD or WP:AfD to start the deletion process, or propose a merger of these articles with other related articles. I'll be happy to help you out with the technical details, just post on my talk page. I would strongly encourage you to create an account for yourself, create a sub-page on your user page called User:yourusernamehere/Sandbox, and draft a suitable article, request comments on it, and when it is "done enough," move the page to the main article space. If possible, it should meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria or at least the B-class level of Wikipedia:Assessment. Even if it can't meet B-class, at least get it to the Start level. Stubs should be used only for items which must be in an any encyclopedia but which aren't important enough to write a full article about. Stubs are mainly for items that wouldn't have an article but for the fact that their absence would be conspicuous, including small towns, unimportant species, obscure chemicals, obscure or unimportant works by famous artists, etc. They are also sometimes used as a starting point when an editor intends to create a start-class-or-better article later but never gets around to it. A lot of articles created through the AfC process wind up as perpetual stubs, as it's not the primary job of the AfC reviewer to expand the article, only to either reject it or accept it and do any necessary cleanup to make the article at least a good stub. In the case of this particular article, I was neutral at first but now I'm leaning toward "reject without prejudice" and wait for a rewrite.

By the way, if you have any close relationship with this person, for example, if you are a student, employee, or graduate of the school he teaches at, or are a member of his family, or any other relationship, you should declare that you have a conflict of interest and are taking great care to make sure that other editors review your proposal before it becomes part of the encyclopedia. You can - and should - do this as a logged-in user rather than as an IP address. There is nothing wrong with being a logged-in user if you have a COI, you just need to be very careful about making content changes to the actual article. Even if you have a COI, you are welcome to draft a version in your own sandbox, and you are welcome to recommend changes on the article's future talk page, and of course you are welcome to make non-content changes and to remove unsourced, harmful information as described in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material.

If you do not have a conflict of interest, then all you need to do is create an account and create the article. If the article does a good job of meeting WP:Notability and other requirements it will likely stay. If it doesn't, it will likely be tagged with cleanup tags and/or cleaned up. If it doesn't assert notability or if the person is deemed not notable enough, it may be nominated for deletion.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 150.135/16 netblock is from the University of Arizona. This indicates a conflict of interest. The editor is doing the right thing by getting outside reviewers before the article is created.

Like all people, once we know everything about him this person can be labeled either clearly notable, marginally notable, or clearly not notable. Given what I've seen here and on the Internet at large, he is clearly at least marginally notable. That's likely not enough to withstand an AfD action but it is enough to avoid a WP:SPEEDY provided the claims are made in the article. I won't approve of this unless I'm convinced it won't be quickly AfD'd or PRODded away. Even if notability is marginal, a high-quality, B-class article is much more likely to survive or even avoid AfD than a start-class or stub article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful reply. There is no conflict of interest but I am thinking of trying to get into one of his classes so there might be a conflict of interest here with my grade if I sign the article and it looked like I was trying to get a good grade! Anyway, if I have time maybe I can look at this again in the summer, I don't know if I will be able to. It's too bad that Wikipedia applies so many rules in cases that warrant inclusion and none have been applied where individuals don't.

Inconsistency is a problem. The rules aren't as hard to follow as it sounds though: Any article needs to be about a notable topic and its notability needs to be verifiable using independent sources, and any article about a living person needs to be watched carefully in case unverified harmful information sneaks in. The "notability threshold" is something that's evolved over time and will continue to evolve. I still encourage you to create an account. You can use a pseudonym. You don't have to say who you are in real life, just that you know this man personally and that you may be a prospective student of his. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting Martin Monestier proposal

After reviewing all of the submissions of this article (date submitted: 30 June 2008), I have concluded that they are not verifiable. I have done so, because while there is a page on another wikipedia, I cannot find any listed sources either in the anon's submission or at the French page. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the contributor offered no sources, so it is fair enough to decline. However if yo like the article you can provide some references yourself. Google comes up with several refs that prove that the guy existed and wrote these kinds of books. OLibrary catalogs may be able to give you a list of books eg loc.gov. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Edda Goring

the the proposed submmision is about Hermann Göring´s daughter. My problem is that I can't decide if she is notable enough or if the article needs more sources. Should I decline it under wp:source or wp:bio?

Alexnia (T) @ 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that you can add |D|bio into the AFC submission template? Any way bio is more definitive than source, as it is no use finding a source. So it is better to decline for bio reasons than verifyability reasons, if you know enough about the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]