Help desk
< December 17	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 19 >

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.

December 18

Adding a new profile

Can you send a link to add a new profile for a person and their company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.137.86 (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this question, but you can use the Article Wizard to write new articles about persons or companies. Articles should have clearly defined topics - either it's an article about a person or about a company, but not both. Of course a company article can mention the founder and vice versa, but only insofar as it's relevant to the article's topic - compare Microsoft and Bill Gates or Apple, Inc. and Steve Jobs.

You should also make sure that the person or the company are notable by Wikipedia's standards, that is, that they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or articles in trade magazines. Primary sources such as the company's own website or press releases do not contribute towards that company's notability and should not be used except for uncontroversial facts or for the source's opinion. I hope this helps; otherwise please be more explicit. Huon (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas John Otzelberger

How do I change the title of a page that has not yet been reviewed and approved? Otzelberger (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Moving a page: The "move" option is hidden in the drop-down menu to the left of the search bar, right next to the "watch this page" star. Or you could just leave a note at the top along the lines of "Article title is supposed to be XYZ" - when the submission is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the correct location.

On an unrelated note, the draft needs quite a bit of cleanup. Currently there are two copies of the draft on the page; you should remove one of them so that the reviewer won't have to figure out which one is the current one. And the page seems copied and pasted with no regard for wikicode - it even has stale "[edit]" tags, and the footnotes aren't what they're supposed to be either. That should be cleaned up.

As Ritchie333 said the last time, you may also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then, how do I remove a page as you suggest? To your comment, this is not an autobiography. The article is actually about my son. If I provide adequate references, is that ok?

Thanks for your help. Otzelberger (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should not remove the entire page, but half the page's content - one of the two copies of the draft. To do so, edit the page, remove the redundant stuff, and make sure to check via the preview that you haven't accidentally removed too much before you save your edit. You should also retain the submission message (generated by the {{afc submission}} template at the top of the page) so the draft still awaits review.

Writing about your son would still be discouraged because you still have a conflict of interest and might find it difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. It's not strictly forbidden, though, and the references you provide look fine to me. The draft's content, though, might need some work; for example it currently tries to connect Otzelberger to ISU's success in the 2011-2012 season and Hoiberg's Big Coach award even though the sources don't make that connection. That's called an original synthesis of sources, something we should not engage in. Huon (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aane Pataaki

Hi,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aane_Pataaki

This article was submitted for review almost a month back. But it still says Article not currently submitted for review. At the bottom of the page it says Review waiting. I clicked submit a few times and now I can see review waiting 5 times at the bottom of the page. But the top still says Article not currently submitted for review.

Am I doing something wrong? How do I bring this to the notice of reviewers?

Thanks for the help.

Archana Appachu (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is correctly submitted for review; the "not currently submitted" message is a relic that should have been cleaned up by a bot, but it doesn't interfere with the review process. I've fixed that manually. Unfortunately we're severely backlogged with more than 1,200 submissions awaiting review; yours is currently near the very top of the pile and should be reviewed soon.

I've cleaned up the references a little, but you may want to have another look - Kannada Filmtube, for example, doesn't look like a reliable source because it's self-published with no indication of editorial oversight. I also had the impression that significant parts of the draft's content weren't supported by the sources at all. Huon (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trans-Tel Central Inc

I just wanted to be clear that "reputable sources" when submitting is the same as references in the article. I also was curious as to how many are required. I don't remember seeing that actually listed anywhere. Was just curious if it was based on sources provided or if there was an actual minimum. Thanks!

Ryzby (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)John[reply]

The golden rule is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There's no explicit definition of the number of sources required to constitute "significant coverage", but it's usually interpreted as "more than one good source", with some editors expecting at least three. Your draft's first two references, however, are just directory entries; such coverage is not considered significant. The AFCEA sourcebook isn't independent either because the information is provided by the company. The US Builders Review appears superficially reliable, but the article is one big collection of marketing buzzwords, and its coverage of Trans-Tel is rather one-sidedly positive. You might want to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard about that one. The draft has some of the same tone issues and currently sounds more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.

You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Huon (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]