Help desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

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.

July 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prey Love Eat (Film)

Im just windering how come my article about the "Prey Love Eat" short film was declined again, after resubmitting it with the changes that were initially asked? I updated the external links in providing a valid link to the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com), which is a valid external source for any film, as well as the official movie website and I even provided the films theatrical trailer. I'm just wondering what was done wrong or not correct this time around, so Incan hopefully correct it ... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.38.176 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb is user-submitted content; it is usually not considered reliable, especially for future films, per WP:RS/IMDB. The film trailer and the official website are not independent of the subject. But to establish the film's notability we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - newspaper articles and published reviews might be found, but probably not before the film has actually been released.

Conversely, a large part of the draft's content is not supported by any sources at all - for example, even IMDb only mentions half the composers.

In summary, we should wait with this article until the film has been released and reviews have been published in reliable publications. Huon (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Long Eaton Rugby Football Club

RE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Long_Eaton_Rugby_Football_Club

I have had this article declined twice on the basis of a lack of notability in spite a number of references in local and national press articles. When I compare it to similar pages eg Long Eaton United FC which has no references at all and a similar content I struggle to see what I can do to improve it.

Please help.

Dgooch81 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dgooch81, as I am not the reviewer, I cannot speak for his/her exact motivation. However, I did notice that your page lacked inline citations for the entirety of the history, which may be cause for a notability rejection. Also, all of your sources come from local publications. Due to this, the club may not be large enough to merit its own full page without a broader spectrum of interaction. Perhaps a stub would be better suited for this article due to the lack of club influence or interaction outside of its immediate community.

As for the Long Eaton United FC page, it has been tagged as needing citation, but it meets the notability requirement more accurately with its wins in the Derbyshire Senior Cup (although it may still be better suited for a stub).

Finally, I noticed that in your article you state that soon after its founding, the Long Eaton Rugby Football Club is a full member of the Derbyshire Rugby Football Club. Perhaps expand your article to include the larger Derbyshire Club and include the Long Eaton Club as a subset of that article. That will increase the reach of your article and thus the notability it entails.

Best of luck!

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirow Ardelt GmbH

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.234.245.16&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kirow_Ardelt_GmbH Dear Sir or Madam,

A few minutes ago, I received the message that my article of the German company "Kirow Ardelt GmbH" was declined at Atricles for creation. I want to know why this article was declined. I hope that you can give me a detailed information about the faults, because I don't want to get anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.245.16 (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the message says, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." As well as verification, we also need good evidence that the company has been widely reported and talked about in reliable, independent, published sources, to prove that it is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Large parts of your article seem to be unsourced and some of your sources verify information about something else (for example source 2). I've no idea what source 3 is. Because you have successfully added some inline citations, I hope you will be able to add citations for the remainder of the article. Sionk (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Bennett

Okay guys, I know I'm learning the ropes here but this is getting ridiculous. I originally wrote an article but learned through several rounds of the review process that much of what was in it either did not meet the notability criteria or wasn't sufficiently well supported through documentation. That's fine -- I totally get that.

The latest review, however, makes no sense to me.

The most second most recent review agreed that Bennett's receipt of a Gemini award *did* meet the notability criteria and that on this basis a stub was justified, though not the more extensive article. The Gemini is the Canadian equivalent of an Emmy award, so this makes sense.

Accordingly I resubmitted it specifically as a stub, removing *everything* in the article except for (a) two very brief sentences to identify the subject of the stub, and (b) two more equally brief ones to summarize the fact of the award win. I then referenced the fact of the award to an entry on the official site of the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television, which is the body that grants the award.

Now, in the review of that submission, the reviewer goes back to contesting the issue of notability, which had apparently been resolved (at least with regard to this very restricted stub of an entry). The reviewer also contests the verifiability of the stub even though the reference is to the very body that issued the award -- you can't really get any more authoritative than that.

Am I missing something here? What am I supposed to do in order to at least get the stub posted that the previous reviewer indicated was justified?

Thanks you.

CLMitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLMitchell (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the award must be from a verifiable, secondary source. Therefore, the reference should be from something like a newspaper article about the award rather than the body that presented the award. The presenting body will always have a bias in favor of the award and the recipient for it makes them look better. That is why Wikipedia requires secondary sources and not primary sources. Best of luck! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Village page contribution still not approved after 3rd review?????????

Hello,

I have revised my contribution to include specific independent third party sources that mention specifically the pages where you can find the information, the ISBN numbers, the authors of the work, and the publishers as well as the date but I am still not getting approval for the page.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME SOME MORE HELP

I do not understand how I can do anything different at this point??

Let me know, thanks! Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sustainablescottie (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, here are some things that I noticed.

First is that there are large parts of your article that are unsourced. For example,

"Empowerment Empowerment and economic liberation for the gifted artisans is central to Distant Village. Distant Village celebrates the artisans’ talents, contributes toward local economic empowerment and invests in personal and financial resources to improve the local communities the company works with.

Environment Distant Village incorporates a concept similar to the cradle to cradle perspective, considering the origin and development of raw materials used, the sustainable design, the use of the packaging and the ultimate re-use of the packaging for other purposes, giving it a longer life-span to minimize waste. The company’s environmental impact is minimized during the extraction and use of raw materials, conversion to finished goods, and waste material avoided or delayed. The majority of the packaging produced by the company comes from abundant and renewable natural materials, natural plant fibers from invasive species of plants, and reclaimed waste.

Raw Materials Examples of various raw materials the company uses includes natural/abundant/renewableplant fibers and invasive plant species, including but not limited to wild tall grasses, bamboo, banana fiber, mulberry, cacao plant leaves (dried and fallen), manilla hempand biomass waste by-products like coconut shells. Artisans convert these raw materials into packaging using hand-crafted methods, including solar and steam heat and manual assembly, minimizing the energy and waste often produced through automation and machines. This paper manufacturing approach does not require electric energy which significantly reduces the carbon footprint related to packaging production. When conventional dyes are necessary, waste water from the dying process is captured, treated, and cleaned before it is returned to the environment. When possible and available,natural dyes are used which further minimize the stress on the environment.

Sustainable Design

Distant Village uses the raw materials in the most efficient way, seeking to create a piece of packaging that can ultimately be completely recycled or composted."

And

"Delivery In terms of transporting packages from point A to B, the company deconsolidates and ships using ocean container vessels, for example, evaluating the carbon footprint.

Kind Capitalism Recognizing the effectiveness of capitalism, the company's founder coined the term “kind capitalism” to describe this novel and socially-conscious approach to Distant Village’s means of production and ethical business relationships with artisan suppliers, clients, and other stakeholders. Noting thatcapitalism without reasonable boundaries can decay the quality of society and create imbalance, Distant Village, in combination with conventional mechanisms of the laws of supply and demand, incorporates a unique offer-acceptance commercial exchange with a single artisan group for each transaction. Kind Capitalism extends the 3BL concepts to provide a balance of power to contribute more significantly toward the longevity and growth of communities and society."

Since these parts are unsourced, they may not be considered notable or verified and thus detract from the article.

Secondly, as I read through your article, it really sounded like an advertisement to me. Phrases like "award-winning", "innovative and new concept", and "best-in-class" to name a few, all seem very biased as opposed to merely stating the facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore must be completely neutral.

Finally, (and this is more a point of clarity and form than content) you don't need to link to purchase the books that you reference. Instead, put your citation for the book in the footnote place instead of the link so that it can easily be seen which book supports each claim in you article.

I hope this helps!

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rahul Easwar

The page Rahul_Easwar seems deleted. Rahul Easwar is a well-respected person in Kerala, India. And the explanations given in the wikipedia page is all true. I have checked and verified everything. I think it ger deleted due to some misunderstanding. Please advice how to remove that bann on that page. Soumya.6262 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya, please review the reasons for deletion listed on this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination). If you feel you have evidence contrary to the criteria listed for deletion, please create a deletion review discussion to petition for the article to be reinstated. Thank you! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need not bother with deletion review if you can write a new, well-sourced draft on Easwar that establishes his notability. But the sources you currently have do not at all support the draft's content; they all cover a single incident where Easwar was denied permission to enter a certain temple. WP:BLP1E may apply. Huon (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decent references--still rejected

I'm trying to post a new article on a industrial lubrication company: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klüber Lubrication

After submitting, it was rejected with this standard message: "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

But here's my confusion: 1) The articles DOES have a good number of references, NOT all rooted in the company website and 2) the German version of the exact same article (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kl%C3%BCber_Lubrication) seems to have been sent live without ANY references at all.

It seems like no matter how much I improve this article, it just keeps getting rejected. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.224.66 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer stated, your article does not have many inline citations. There are large parts of your article that go unvalidated. For example: "In 1869, Theodor Klüber's grandfather, who was also named Theodor, founded a chemist's shop in Schweinfurt, which traded in American petroleum (also referred to as Pennsylvanian oil) as of 1870. The increasing motorization of factories with stationary engines led to a rise in demand for oil and gasoline. The earliest cars required fuel and oil, which was typically provided by pharmacies and chemist's shops. Due to the growth of the regional industry, Klüber set up a petrol and oil store to supply Northern Bavaria." ... "The company was located at today's site of the "Mittlerer Ring" in Munich and later moved to Geisenhausener Strasse. The new company premises were completely destroyed by bombs in 1943 and later rebuilt in 1946. In the following years, Klüber became the largest operator of petrol stations in Bavaria. The mineral oil company DEA granted the license and Klüber was its most important partner with the highest number of petrol stations. [] Recognizing that the classic fuel and oil business would ultimately shift to large mineral oil companies, Theodor Klüber sold his petrol stations to Texaco in 1955 with Texaco taking over DEA's petrol station network. Afterwards, Klüber’s company fully concentrated on lubricants. The goal of Klüber Lubrication was to develop, produce and sell small quantities of very high-quality products. [] The company was renamed Klüber Lubrication München KG in March 1959 and became a producer and distributor. [] As there was no successor in his own family, Theodor Klüber looked for a company that would continue the firm. Ultimately, Theodor Klüber met Richard Freudenberg at an event. Both were filled with enthusiasm about the idea of joining Freudenberg, the world market leader for seals, with Klüber Lubrication, the lubricant specialist." ... "With additional purchases and newly established companies, Klüber Lubrication continued to grow, also on an international scale. By 1993, Klüber Lubrication had 16 subsidiaries and three joint ventures in Japan, Korea and Mexico."

How do I know that these excerpts are valid or not? All of the statements made in these quotes may be true, I can't contest that because I don't know the material. However, you should include citations in line with the statements to show that they are validated. Since you do that elsewhere in your article, the reviewer must have assumed that the statements you referenced were the only ones validated by your sources, and thus the rest of your statements are unvalidated. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We recently got rid of inline citations as a reason to decline an article. Doesn't that mean we should approve it if that is the only source? Then we can put {{more footnotes}} on it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, thank you for that. That was my fault for hastily throwing that out there.

Unsigned, disregard my note about inline citations being required (although they will definitely make your reviewer happier and make everyone's life easier). Upon closer inspection, I discovered a much more important error. Your citations come from the company itself, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You must use secondary sources (e.g. newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc.) as opposed to primary sources (company website, blog, etc.). Here are the sources that should not be included by category.

Company Sites

2.^ http://www.klueber.com/en/company/history/

3.^ http://www.freudenberg.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=FCO_EN_history_international_expansion (you might be able to get away with this one if you only reference it for the acquisition.)

4.^ http://www.fcs-muenchen.com/company/history

5.^ www.klueber.com/en/company/company-data

6.^ http://klueber.com/ecomaXL/get_blob.php?name=Lebensmittel-EN.pdf/

7.^ http://www.klueber.com/en/company/sustainability-and-responsibility-for-the-environment/

Blogs (mostly written by employees to boot!)

8.^ http://www.plantengineering.com/home/single-article/proper-lubrication-plays-a-role-in-energy-efficiency/67bedf96c8.html

9.^ http://www.pem-mag.com/Features/cut-costs-not-corners-lubricants-have-significant-impact-on-energy-labour-and-equipment-costs.html/

Press Releases

1.^ http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2012/April/Techtextil_North_America_2012_Exhibitor_Preview_Kluber_Lubrication.html

These are all of your sources, and they all fall under one of Wikipedia's criteria for unreliable sources. If you can find better sourcing, then your article will be able to pass review.

However, there is still the issue of bias, as most of your information as it is came from primary biased sources. Please remove biased language (like below) and replace it with more neutral phrasing.

"Klüber was its most important partner with the highest number of petrol stations"

"The company prides itself in creating lubricants that improve machine efficiency for reduced CO2 emissions with minimal lubricant waste"

Good luck!

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Alan Bukovnik

I have had a submission (Gary Bukovnik) rejected for unspecified copyright violation. Material is properly cited. How does one find out what someone at Wikipedia thinks impinges on copyright? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/suryavarman1950 Suryavarman1950 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are parts of your article, like "Primarily using the media of watercolor, monotype, and lithograph, Bukovnik fuses sensual vitality with fluid yet powerful colorations, creating floral and culinary images of great depth, intensity, and size," that are directly copie from www.garybukovnik.com (in particular the About the Artist section). Please be careful not to plagaraze the language used in your sources as Wikipedia takes the issue of plagarism (intentional or unintentional) very seriously. Also, as a side note, please refrain from using Gary Bukovnik's own site as a reference in his article. Please use secondary sources like the books you listed as opposed to that primary source. News or magazine articles are also good sources to find much of the same information. This helps Wikipedia avoid unintended bias and allows the publications used as sources to do the fact checking as opposed to Wikipedia itself. Thank you.

Also, I have moved this to its own section of the help desk as opposed to the unsigned question above.

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have edited my article to read more like an encyclopedia than an essay and have resubmitted it. The sources are all solid. Even though they may be only one or two lines, they talk about Steve Schlanger doing exactly what is listed in the article. They are all credible and he is more notable than many others who have wikipedia pages already published so I fail to see the issue with meeting the criteria. Can you please review and let me know. Thanks.

Sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other articles: Other stuff exists, but each article has to stand on its own merits. Regarding the sources: I have explained why they are problematic in detail here, and you have addressed none of those issues. Notability requires more than just one-line mentions.

You have not actually resubmitted the article. (In fact you have not edited it at all for more than a week.) I can do that for you, but unless we have better sources, it will just be declined for a lack of notability. Huon (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lumiere & Son Theatre Company

Thank you for the comments re referencing and notability in Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Lumiere & Son Theatre Company. I'm slightly worried that the version you examined did not contain the 9 or so footnoted references that had been entered into the text.I submitted the article a while ago then noticed that the footnotes seemed to have been stripped out. I then resubmitted, with the footnoted references restored, before receiving a response from you, which means that 2 copies of the article have been submitted. I then noticed that the version that has just appeared in Articles for Creation also bears no footnoted references, which leads me to think that the editor may never have seen them, an absence which might inform the comments she has made. Is it possible that on the two occasions I submitted I did something that actually removed the references I had intended to include? Thanks for any light that might be shed on this. Genepez (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the references were added. The draft's history isn't that long, and no old version contained references. I also had a look at your contributions, but I don't see anything relevant there, either. Are you sure you have saved the version with the references added? Maybe you ran afoul of the preview? My suggestion would be to first save the article with the references, and to re-submit it in a second step only after it has been saved with the references, when it looks fine while not in edit mode. Huon (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]