Help desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation 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.

August 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Original Core of The Sovran Nations Embassy of Mother Earth

Greetings,

I wrote my articles into word, this articles took me almost a years as I had to interview all persons involved with this.

Best Regards

Andreas Pirelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreasPirelli (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia requires published sources. Your interviews with the involved persons cannot serve as references unless they have been published by a reliable publisher, and even then they would probably be considered primary sources. But we need significant coverage i reliable sources that are independent of the subject (such as newspaper articles) to establish the subject's notability. For example, the claim that Cecil De Labio is the Chief Justice in America would definitely need a secondary source when it's commonly held that John Roberts is Chief Justice of the United States. The draft also desperately needs some more context; I find it very hard to tell what the Sovran Nations are. Huon (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prakruthi Gowda

Hi. I submitted an article which has already has good sources to authenticate. i got reply from allanecc saying "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

There are other sources to verify notability of this person but they are not in website. they are usually news paper scans. please help me how can i submit then to you for your reference.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadeem078 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "already good sources" are a photo of Gowda and an interview on something that looks more like a blog than a newspaper - I have doubts about that source's reliability, and even if that weren't a problem, an interview, the actress speaking about herself, should still be considered a primary source. And both sources combined don't fully supports the article's content; for example, neither mentions Bishop Cotton's Girls School. Those aren't good sources.

While online sources have obvious advantages, there's no requirement that sources be available online. As long as you provide enough bibliographical details to allow our reades to identify the source (the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the date, the page number, the author if possible), offline newspaper articles are entirely acceptable. The {{cite news}} template may be helpful. However, I find it hard to believe that no reliable online sources should exist on a notable actress who has been active within the past ten years.

As an aside, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which part of the article is supported by which source. Huon (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rallye Des Pyrenees

I got into a bit of a muddle and submitted 4 drafts (one of which was rightly rejecte as it consisted of just the references (I thought I was saving the article during drafting !). It's only the last draft you need consider that is fully linked and referenced and spelling error -free . I shall add the photographs to this last draft today. Enjoy. Thanks 213.123.135.235 (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the duplicate drafts and tidied up the references in the process. Huon (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon - Is it being reviewed ? It is ready although it may need tidying up as to how the photographs are presented. 77.101.71.153 (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]