Help desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

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 24

Article declined for third time

The article I tried to create has been declined for the third time. I have added more references but I do not see how I can re-submit it. Please advise. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Mull (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kristina, I don't see any reason why the previous reviewer declined your article, considering you have cited several meaty news articles about the subject. The one big problem remaining is the need to provide sources for the personal information about Wheeler and her family. If published sources aren't available, the information is likely to be removed from the article. Sionk (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of analog integrated circuits

Hello. I've been advised to change the title of the article. I would appreciate some help on how it is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophostrix (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft curretly seems to deal only with LM series integrated circuits - the title should reflect that. To change the draft's name, I'd just add a line like "Article name is supposed to be List of LM series integrated circuits" to the very beginning of the article. You could also move the article to its new more specific name.

You currently do not have any secondary sources (such as electronics textbooks), and we do not have an article on the LM series. We need significant coverage in secondary sources to establish that this series of semiconductors in notable. Huon (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Article

Hello,

Can you please provide me more details on how to request an article to be written on the company I work for? Is this possible and if yes, how?

Thanks, Mihaela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.220.23 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place to request articles is WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, in this case Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. You can add your company there. Please add links to reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles as a basis on which an article can be written. If no significant coverage in such sources exists, the company will be deemed non-notable. Huon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: article declined for third time.

Thank you to Sionk for your information. I can delete the said information, but I do not see the button to resubmit the article like I did the first two times. Please let me know how to go about re-submitting when it has been put into the declined category. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Mull (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk accepted the submission. It's now a full-blown article and doesn't need to be resubmitted any more. Thank you for improving Wikipedia; keep up the good work! Huon (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tanana Valley State Fair

New creator - not sure why my references aren't showing up on the actual page - they are in code. Thanks! Dhtrible (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are supposed to be added directly to the statement the reference supports, and the {{reflist}} template will automatically add the footnote text in the "References" section. For now I have just moved the template below the footnotes so they appear, but you'll have to move the footnotes (the "<ref>Footnote text</ref>" code) to the appropriate places.

Unfortunately those sources cannot establish the Fair's notability. Two are clearly not independent of the Tanana Valley State Fair, another, the Alaska State Fair website, isn't a reliable source, and the fourth, LitSite, mentions the fair only in passing - not even by name. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable secodary sources, such as newspaper coverage (and not just the local paper - that would probably be considered "routine news coverage" and would not suffice to establish the Fair's notability). Huon (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more from nearby newspapers and attempt to fix the referencing. Not sure how this all works with your rules and the coding, and would be happy to have someone else find 'approved' references, since the rules you describe seem nearly impossible to meet -- who would care about any fair anywhere but a relatively local paper? I thought I picked the best sources - from the horse's mouth as it were. However, if the "Alaska State Fair" has its own page (which it already does) then "Tanana Valley State Fair" deserves its own page as well as they are *equal* entities. The former page has no mention of the latter and I suspect that it would be removed if I added it (different topic, etc). Currently Wikipedia exhibits that the Alaska State Fair is the main/only state fair of Alaska which is just plain false. But I digress...... Dhtrible (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no one but a local paper cares about the fair, then it probably isn't notable enough to have an article. And while other stuff exists, each article has to stand on its own merits - maybe we shouldn't have an article on the Alaska State Fair either and just haven't deleted it yet. I've tagged it for cleanup for now.

Anyway, I expect a state fair to receive at least state-wide news coverage, and maybe there are textbooks on Alaska history discussing it? Huon (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of real book sources for both fairs. They are of some state and national significance because of the size vegetables grow in Alaska at the very least: the state fairs are no doubt one of the main reasons people here keep trying to grow cabbages the size of small children. Maybe I will go to the real library and find some real sources. Dhtrible (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb

I don't understand what I am supposed to do, and I think that the people blocking this article are not following the rules. They keep saying the article doesn't show she is notable. Then they refer me to a page that says musicians are notable if they have recorded on major lables (Holcomb has CDs on Elektra and Nonesuch), and if they have the subject of independent coverage (she's been reviewed in the New York Times, and covered in other jazz media). This is documented in the discography section. So I'm told she's not notable and then given crieria she actually meets. This has happened repeatedly. This is my first time trying to make an article, and if this is how it usually works, it is going to be my last. I've mostly fixed typos and made small changes, but I decided to make an account and work on one of my favorite singers. Bleh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the New York Times article clearly is a reliable secondary source, the best kind of source we can hope for, unfortunately it doesn't say much about Holcomb beyond the short description of her musical style you quote in full. Interviews, on the other hand, contribute less to notability because they're basically the subject speaking about herself - besides, I'm not sure whether either allaboutjazz or Earshot Jazz have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to be considered reliable - since Earshot's stated goal is the promotion of Seattle jazz artists, I rather doubt they're unbiased. Allmusic tends to cover every single artist; routine coverage like that also counts less towards notability.

As an aside, Allmusic, Earshot Jazz and allaboutjazz give three different dates for the Larks, they crazy album. Discogs agrees with allaboutjazz, but that does not inspire confidence in the other sources.

The Allmusic biography seems the best secondary source for background information, but it's currently not used at all. For example, the article doesn't even mention the New York Composers' Orchestra. Surely her work with that orchestra has been more widely discussed? The Penguin Guide to Jazz also may have something to say about Holcomb, but I cannot tell whether that will be more than trivial coverage.

In summary, I don't doubt Holcomb is notable, but the draft currently does not show it. We'd need more truly independent sources that cover Holcomb in some detail, we'd need to show which source supports which statement by using inline citations and footnotes, and the draft itself should rely less on lengthy quotes and instead provide more biographical details. Do we have a source for her date of birth, for example? Huon (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The criteria for notability--which I have read many times at this point--says that an artist is notable if she has "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" Holcomb has four albums on Warner Group labels such as Elektra and Nonesuch. The stuff about bias is ridiculous. By that logic, Rolling Stone can't be a "reliable source" because it is biased in favor of rock. Downbeat can't be reliable because it is biased regarding jazz. And so on. What fact-checking are you talking about? This isn't Watergate. Holcomb meets the notability requirements, the problem is that the people enforcing rules around here aren't reading the rules they are enforcing. Minorview (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion I referred to is the general notability guideline. There are more specific topic-based guidelines such as WP:MUSIC which indicate criteria that make it extremely likely that the subject has received such significant coverage. As I said, I don't doubt Holcomb is notable by whatever criteria we apply, but the sources currently provided aren't the best, and the draft does not adequately summarize what the sources say. Regardig bias: Surely you recognize the difference between a newspaper and a promotion? If you believe Earshot is a reliable source, we can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more input on that question. And as to the fact-checking, WP:RS says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How about the publication date for Larks, They Crazy? I'm willing to believe different editions have been published in 1988 and 1989, but the Earshot date of 1990 seems to be just plain wrong. That is a fact they should have checked, isn't it? Huon (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The artist isn't notable because somebody got a publication date for her first album (23 years ago) wrong. How many times do I have to point out the black and white facts? The artist meets the requirements for notability stated on the rulesheet for notability, and that is documented in the article. I quit. Minorview (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you get from "I don't doubt Holcomb is notable by whatever criteria we apply" to "The artist isn't notable"? That she's notable doesn't mean that this draft is an acceptable article about her. I have outlined the problems I see with the draft and suggested how to fix them. Huon (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That she's notable does in fact mean that this is an acceptable article about her. No other documented criterion for creating an article has been presented. You don't know the difference between the criteria for an article being allowed to exist, and the crieria for rating an article's quality. You are talking about ways to improve the article, not whether it deserves to exist, you just can't seem to grasp the difference. Improvement is something multiple editors do together on an existing article, not a reason to bar an article from existing in the first place. Your comments about improvement are also devoid of common sense. What possible issue of reliability could there be in a jazz site interviewing a jazz musician? That they fabricated the interview? Or what? Please stop acting as a censor to other people's efforts when you don't even understand the rules. Minorview (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the only criterion for a certain article's existence. It must also satisfy policies such as verifiability and our policy on biographies of living persons. The current draft has problems with both because it relies heavily on primary and unreliable sources, and because it does not have inline citations. Obviously we should not create articles which violate core policies. Put bluntly: Just because we should have some article on Holcomb, it doesn't follow that we should have this article.

Regarding the issue of reliability: A site dedicated to promoting Seattle jazz is unlikely to publish criticisms of Seattle jazz musicians - positive reviews are much more likely. It's a biased source. Furthermore, I pointed out one fact they actually get wrong - while errors happen everywhere, that does not inspire confidence in the accuracy of the other facts they report. Whether interviews are reliable sources is debatable, but since the information is basically provided by the subject itself, interviews should probably be considered primary sources. Again, if you disagree with my assessment of those sources, feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for another opinion.

Finally, I'm not the one who declined your submission, I'm just explaining why it was declined and advising you on how to fix those issues. If you prefer I can stop replying to you on this help desk (the full extent of my "censorship"), but I doubt that will help you get the draft approved. Fixing the issues and writing a good draft seems more productive to me than arguing that we should publish a bad draft. I'll be happy to help with technical issues, but I'm neither knowledgeable nor interested eough in jazz musicians to do the heavy lifting. Huon (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making sense. Whether the citations are inline has nothing to do with the reliability of sources or "BLP". The notability requirement is met by putting out albums on major labels, and Holcomb has done that, it is easy to verify, and the article's sources do so reliably. End of discussion. Minorview (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist has released an album on a major label, you should be able to provide a reference to it. In the UK, British Hit Singles & Albums lists all charting singles and albums since 1952 and individual pages from it can be used to assert a chart position. Please note that the bar to notability tends to be a bit higher for musicians than other subjects, the onus is on you to provide references, not to demand that we look for them ourselves. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A complete discography was provided, and cited. Minorview (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a minute to find this, since the reference to AllMusic was not an inline reference. You might, incidentally, want to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies as to the suitability and reliability of using AllMusic as a source. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The User who says No

The user Huon, the sole serial decliner of alternative capitalization redirect requests such as this one, has been told many times that there are very good reasons for such redirects. To quote from here: "Yes, the search box is not case sensitive, but the URL bar is" (and not everybody users Wikpedia the same way). Huon continues to ignore this information –which is well known to him– and keeps declining requests that no other Wikipedian declines. On appeal, Huon's refusals do get overturned by other users, but it is getting tiresome to go through these motions again and again and again each and every time, and Huon appears to have never been reprimanded or called on his actions by other users. Can maybe an admin step in and fix this issue for good? Thank you. 31.18.251.64 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huon is our best 1st responder here at AfC, but let me try to answer your concerns. AfC has no way to control or sanction reviewers. You should express your concerns at WP:ANI. They have people more knowledgeable about the overall operation of the Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. :- ) Don 20:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to create that redirect when I realized it had previously been deleted with an edit summary of "bad redirect". Apparently I'm not the only one who doubts the usefulness of redirects from different capitalizations. You can create an account; then you'll soon be able to create redirects to your heart's content. Huon (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constantine W. Curris

How do I insert a picture? Is there a format for those rectangular boxes that frequently have pics and a summary. Pyramid43 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyramid43,

Have a look at WP:IMAGES. There are several different formats to which you may be referring. If that does not answer all your questions, there is a list of "See also" at the bottom of the page. If you still have problems, come back here. :- ) Don 22:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Those rectangular boxes that frequently have pics and a summary" are Infoboxes. The generic one for a person is Template:Infobox person. You place it at the top of the article and then fill in the fields that you have info for and are relevant. Roger (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, yes. Thanks Roger. Sorry, guess I was not thinking. :- ) Don 14:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louie A. Valdez

I am new to wikipedia and based my reference list upon another submission. I was declined and seeking help with re-submitting since all of the references are from known sources and verify the information in my submitted article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligq826 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT CONFLICT: Thanks Huon. You and I were doing the same thing at the same time. It's all yours. :- ) Don 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes (the "<ref>Reference text and link</ref>" code) are supposed to immediately follow the statements they support in the article. The {{reflist}} template in the "References" section will then automatically display the footnote text. I have moved the footnotes above the template so they get displayed, but you'll have to move them to the appropriate places within the draft. I believe the reviewer didn't see them at all.

The Moorpark Acorn is indeed a reliable secondary source, just the kind of source we're looking for. Unfortunately that article doesn't say much about Valdez. The other references, his LinkedIn page, his employer and the charity he's involved in, are all primary sources. To establish Valdez' notability, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Besides, most of the draft was copied almost verbatim from the charity website: A copyright violation. I have blanked that part; not much was left. Huon (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I will make the necessary changes to this article and resubmit. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligq826 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Jimmelin/sandbox

How do I publish Jimmelin/sandbox ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmelin (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Melin. A reviewer will soon have a look; because there's a massive backlog, that may take a few days. However, there are several issues that should be addressed before the submission can be accepted. First of all, if you're Jim Melin, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Secondly, the draft currently does not cite any reliable sources. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject both to establish Melin's notability and to allow our readers to verify the content. Furthermore, the draft is currently unduly laudatory. In order to achieve a more encyclopedic tone, it will have to be edited severely. As an example, take the sentence about the "hallmark strengths of Jim". Would you really expect to read a sentence about the "hallmark stregths of George" in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on George Washington? And those "hallmark strengths" would need attribution to a secondary source; otherwise it's pure puffery. Also, the second half of the article seems to be not about Melon at all, but about the company he founded. Maybe the company is notable enough for an article of its own (again determined by coverage in secondary sources), but the article on Melon should not deal with details of the company that are irrelevant to him. My suggestion would be: If you're Jim Melon, don't write the article yourself; wait until an unrelated editor does so. If you're not Jim Melon, find some coverage in reliable sources, such as newspaper articles about Melon, and rewrite the article based on what those sources say. It's probably easier to rewrite it from scratch than to try and salvage parts of the current draft. Huon (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]