Help desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kidus Henok

I submitted IMDb isn't that enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessat123 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are inherent problems with using IMDB, unless information is very specifically marked. More importantly, your other references are all self published sources and cannot be used to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rejected

Hi,

This is my article link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Patrick_Steven_Dine

It is showing that the article is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I have provided the references link of Linkedin, website and amazon book. I think these personal profiles are not taking for consideration.

Please go through this link [1] of businessweek and let me know whether I can give this as a reliable sources.

If I give this then will my article get accepted by Wikipedia?

Looking forward to your response.

Regards, Webmaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Steven Dine (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Businessweek is a reliable source - it has a reputation of accurate fact checking to uphold. However, just being a reliable source isn't enough to establish notability - you also need to have significant coverage in reliable sources. In the case of the Businessweek article, it's simply a company check record, which I assume is done for every company. What you need is coverage that talks directly about Dine and why he is worthy of notice in a worldwide encyclopedia. Newspaper, magazine and book coverage is good for this. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn, Amazon and your own website are all what we refer to as user-generated pages, and are therefore not regarded as reliable sources. In addition, the user generating them (at least in the case of LinkedIn and your website) was you, the subject of the article, meaning that they are obviously not independent sources. In order to have a page on Wikipedia, any subject must be covered significantly (i.e. a paragraph or two, rather than just a listing) in multiple (i.e. two or more), reliable (i.e. editorially oversighted, non-fringe, mainstream published), independent (i.e. not related to the subject economically, biologically or otherwise) sources. Anything (including Bloomberg Businessweek profiles copied from your website) that replicates your own statements about yourself is not going to be acceptable. In addition, you have an overwhelming conflict of interest in the creation of this article (hence its unencyclopedic, fawning, promotional tone); we have rules against the creation of autobiographies for precisely this reason. If what you have done in life is notable someone else will write an article about you - you yourself should not. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Team Bombsquad

I was told to remove any references that did not mention Team Bombsquad. I removed those references. Is there anything else I need to do to have this article approved? JpB01 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit, actually. The excerpt from Ithaca.com was so long it probably no longer constitutes fair use of a copyrighted text, but a copyright violation. The attribution is a nice gesture, but it doesn't solve the copyright problem. Thus I've removed that excerpt and left just a short placeholder and the link to the source.

To be considered notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In fact, Wikipedia content should be based on such sources, not just to establish notability but also to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Most of the sources mention Team Bombsquat only in passing, and at least one still doesn't mention it at all. Ithaca.com may actually be a reliable source, but it seems to be local coverage, and on its own it's probably not enough to establish notability. Besides, we should summarize the source in our own words, not just copy and paste it. Huon (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/why is no winner in simon says

why was my submission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it had no appreciable content. I couldn't even determine its topic, and it had no information beyond a phone number. Huon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons Huon stated, I would also have considered proposing this article for speedy deletion as Patent Nonsense. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Jchittley/University of british columbia graduate school of journalism

Hello, I submitted an article for review about 2.5 weeks ago and was wondering how long it may take to be reviewed? The article I submitted is User:Jchittley/University of british columbia graduate school of journalism. Thank you for your help and I look forward to hearing from you. Jchittley (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)jchittley[reply]

Hi. There is a colossal backlog of nearly 1500 articles review. We desperately need more reviewers helping out, but in the meantime I can only advise you to have patience. However, I'm not inclined to pass your article in its current state, as most the references appear to be on the school's own website, or don't feature it as the main subject. To establish notability and pass the article, we require multiple reliable sources that are independent of the school and talk about it in some depth. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333, Thank you very much for your helpful advice. I went through and swapped out a bunch of the School website links for other reputable websites. Hopefully that will come in handy when it is reviewed. I also just noticed now that under the Review waiting at the bottom it says "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/University of british columbia graduate school of journalism" Should I click the button and move it? And what does this mean? Thanks again for your help. Jchittley (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)jchittley[reply]

We like to collect drafts all in one place, as sub-pages of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. Thus your draft should indeed be moved; I have done so for you (in fact I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/University of British Columbia Graduate School of Journalism so the title is correctly capitalized). One important issue: The page currently contains two versions of the draft. You should remove the outdated version lest the reviewer accidentally reviews the wrong one. Both versions still rely heavily on links to university websites, though; in particular I'd probably remove all staff members that don't have a Wikipedia article of their own. Many other sources also look like primary sources to me: Al-Jazeera's Freedom from Pain as a source on Freedom from Pain, the New York Times as a source on the IRP's collaboration with the New York Times, the Mindset Foundation as the source for a Mindset Foundation donation, and so on. Huon (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, Thank you for the advice and for moving the article. I added a bunch of secondary links and deleted the professors who don't have their own Wikipedia pages. Hopefully that will come in handy when the article is reviewed. I shall continue to be patient. Thanks again. Jchittley (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)jchittley[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Baze

Hello, I created an article for Josh Baze on December 1st- but I'm confused as to how the review process works? I haven't heard from anyone-- how long will it take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartelMGMT (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, there is a massive backlog of about 1,500 articles to review. It will unfortunately take a few weeks. Regarding your article, Baze looks borderline notable per WP:MUSIC by being signed to a label, releasing one album on it, and getting national radio exposure. However, I will need to check the sources to verify that this information is true. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sheikh Waleed Naeem

(article removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Waleed Naeem (talk • contribs) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is wholly unsuitable for Wikipedia and I have requested it be speedy deleted. Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise illegal services. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elastic mechanism in musculoskeletal systems

Hello

I wanted to know what I need to do in order to make my article Wikipedia talk:Elastic mechanism in musculoskeletal systems/ AbrahamA7 approve by Wikipedia? Can I know what is wrong with it and how can I fix it since four people including myself are making a new Wikipedia page but I decided to add my part first so the version you see is just a small portion of the Elastic mechanism in musculosketal systems. The rest was suppose to be posted after I submitted my part. AbrahamA7 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft reads like a research paper, not like an encyclopedia article. In fact, it reads so much like a research paper that I strongly suspect it's copied wholesale from one, which would be a copyright violation. It even contains references to non-existent figures (that were probably present in whatever source the draft was copied from). My suggestion would be not to write a new article on that subject, but rather to expand coverage in our main tendon article.

There are also a couple of technical issues: For example you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the article's statements, and you should add wikiliks to related articles to ease navigation within Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dawn Alice (Author)

I'm confused by all of this :)

I've added a link to an Amazon Author Page which confirms most of the information that needs citations.

The link is http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Alice/e/B0098GOA1M/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1354745455&sr=1-2-ent

Is that enough to confirm the information?

I'm not sure what part of the article needs further proof?

Please let me know what you want me to do next.

My apologies for being so slow to learn how to use this system

Regards D'Arcy Mayo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talimayo (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Amazon is not a reliable source; authors can edit their own profiles and have them say whatever the author wants without any oversight or fact-checking. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or maybe articles literary or psychic magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish a subject's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. And even if Amazon were reliable the author page hardly confirms much of the article. It doesn't discuss Alice's typical childhood days, it doesn't mention a "red-haired lady named Dot", it doesn't discuss her grandmother's psychic energy (and an exceptional claim like that would require very good sources), it doesn't even confirm the quote it's cited for.

There are additional problems. The worst: The current draft is a very close paraphrase of Alice's biography at her blog - so close that it's probably a copyright violation, which would mean it should be deleted immediately. I have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 December 6. For the text to be acceptable at Wikipedia, the copyright holder would have to release it under a free license, specifically the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. See WP:Requesting copyright permission for details.

The tone is also inappropriately promotional, worst of all when the draft quotes the self-published book's sales blurb at excessive length. Of course neither Alice's own website nor her book's blurb are independent sources anyway. So it's probably easier to rewrite the article from scratch based on better sources than to bother with the license for her blog's biography.

If I interpret your username correctly, you're a relative of Alice. In that case you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about people you're closely associated with is discouraged. Huon (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center Stage Atlanta (2)

Good afternoon, after my last submission was declined in October, I reached out to the reviewer (Sarah Steirch) but had not heard back from her. I know you all are very busy (I can't even imagine), but I would very much appreciate a chance to speak with you regarding my submission.

I'm obviously new at this and as you can probably tell, I've been struggling with my article for over 6 months now! I am determined to get my page published and will happily comply with any guidelines you have, I just have a few questions.

On the issue of my sources, I completely understand how flickr and social media sites would not be the best references. However, after I was told via Wiki livechat that I would have to back up these performances, I checked some of the other local venue pages to see how they did this and found that Variety Playhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_Playhouse) used Flickr for more than a few performances (reference number 27), while the Tabernacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tabernacle) and Masquerade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masquerade_(Atlanta)) were able to get their page published with show lists that had no references whatsoever.

I can easily remove those performances/artists who have unreliable sources, but I'm wondering why there's a discrepancy between the requirements for my page and the pages mentioned above that were permitted publishing. I know you were more than likely not the person to give them the green light, I'm just lost.

Also, in my last livechat on 10/2, I spoke to a reviewer/aid (magicskyjuice) who went over the "guideline for buildings" and said if I could find one more newspaper/magazine article on the venue, he'd pass it. I saved this conversation, here's an excerpt: [11:39] <magicskyjuice> katy, if you can find one more i'll pass it [11:39] <katy> k, that'd be wonderful! When I submit it again, is there a way I can tag you or send it to you? [11:40] <magicskyjuice> i'll watch that article and i'll look next week

I found that last source by digging up a physical issue of Jezebel Magazine (reference number 9) and resubmitted, but to no avail. Again, I know you aren't this person, but this is my first page and I'm trying to learn how things are done. I didn't know if it was worth me trying to find him/her or what.

I would greatly greatly appreciate any input you had on this. Thank you so much for your time and patience and have a great day.

Katyw220 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other articles with problematic sources exist, but that's no reason to create more. Rather we should clean up the existing problems; we simply haven't gotten around to fixing them all yet. My suggestion would be the same as Sarah Stierch's: Remove the bands for which no reliable sources exist, and remove all the dubious sources. Right now it's almost a challenge to find the truly reliable sources among the chaff: Flickr, Facebook, their own website and even Wikipedia itself. None of those are reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the kind of source Wikipedia content should be based on.

Regarding Magicskyjuice, I've never heard of him, and we don't have a User:Magicskyjuice. So obviously his IRC nick is not the same as his Wikipedia username, and I have no idea how to find him. I've asked the people at the live chat, but they didn't seem to know his Wikipedia username either. So unfortunately I cannot help you there. Huon (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]