Help desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Keats

I have addressed in a re-write the concerns of the first editor, about notability and references for George Keats. However I am unable to paste my Word file, with newly annotated references, into your software. Also, I have two pictures for inclusion and do not know how to attach them via your software. Because others have access to my posting, I receive thusfar-unhelpful notices from them - should I ignore them ? Do you recommend for-hire editors who understand your system, which I clearly don't ? Thanks. Crutcherl (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not compatible with the Word file format; the formatting will be lost, and the references will not be in Wikipedia's customary style. Wikipedia provides rather in-depth help on many editing and formatting topics. In particular, help on references and footnotes is available at Help:Footnotes; formatting pictures is explained at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Images can be uploaded via Special:Upload; if they are available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you can also upload them at the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard.

The notices on your talk page are just for your information; you can ignore them or have a look at the Teahouse which is part of Wikipedia's support for new editors; the people there can probably help you with any specific problems you might have. That's just an offer and not compulsory.

For-hire editors seem like overkill to me; I've only ever heard of companies using them to have articles on themselves or their products written. My suggestion would be to write plain text with as little formatting as possible (though footnotes for the references are a good idea) and to have other editors look after the style edits. Then you can watch and learn from them. Huon (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will also help if one of the drafts can be deleted - there are currently two! Sionk (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, you can export a Word file in HTM or HTML format, which is closer to being compatible with Wikipedia Mark-up. :- ) Don 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ana El-Hekaya

My question is concerning the Ana El-Hekaya article:

In included several published articles as my resources but I got extra information/detail about the plays and the group's objectives from Dr.Sahar herself, the leading and founding member of the group in an interview. Is there no way I can put the interview as a primary resource? Or is there any way that Wikipedia can verify the information from her personally via email for example?

Thanks! HebaHesham123 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no. Our information has to be verifiable by anyone – not just "Wikipedia", but individual editors, and readers. So we can only use published sources. Also, as an encyclopaedia, we generally shy away from using primary sources, though there are exceptions.

The only way would be to publish the interview elsewhere (in a reliable source) and then to cite it there (being careful to note your potential conflict of interest). joe•roe^t•c 09:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove article request?

I could not create articles, so I had to put in a request. After a few other contributions, I was able to create the article myself however. How do I remove the article creation request? Darakir (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article already exists in the mainspace and the draft submission has been declined for that reason, nothing needs to be done. You can, however, place {{db-user}} on the draft page to get it deleted.

The article is currently very short on reliable sources. It has even been tagged for speedy deletion because it currently does not show a claim to notability. You might either want to improve it quickly, showing that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists, or keep the draft around in case the article gets deleted, so you'll have a little more time improving it without losing all your work. Using the AfC process instead of putting the article directly in the mainspace may also help you by giving you feedback on the article's problems without immediate calls for deletion. Huon (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apprise Software, Inc.

I tried building a new page and got dinged for only referencing niche publications, but the product/company I am writing about happened to win awards in those publications. I do not think that this diminishes the fact of their relevence. Relevence is relevence. If you could please let me know exactly what I can do to get this post live I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks! Webbedfeet13 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apprise Software, Inc.[reply]

Notability for Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Two of your sources are press releases, not independent (one of them looks as if it were About.com but isn't - that's rather strange). As the reviewer said, the inbound logistics sources provide only trivial coverage, and Supply Chain Digest doesn't mention Apprise at all. The remainder are highly specialized sources, and the more specialized, the less do they confer notability. Maybe Apprise has received some more general newspaper coverage? Huon (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Jeffrey M Dean/sandbox

Why can we not just create new articles as we used to? Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can. IP editors cannot. Inexperienced editors may profit from the review process. AfC is for the latter groups; it's not compulsory for anybody but IPs. If you feel your draft is ready for the mainspace, you can just move it yourself, but right now it's very short on secondary sources. Huon (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. How does one move it to "mainspace?" Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Moving a page. The "move" option is well-hidden to the immediate ~~right~~ left of the search box. It will present you with a menu where you can choose the page's new name and namespace (the article namespace is what I meant by "mainspace") and provide an edit summary. The page move will leave a redirect from your sandbox to the article. Huon (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I actually found it to the left of the search box. It is a little black upside-down triangle constituting a down arrow. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Never ask me a "left-right" question... Huon (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has the same problem. We finally put "L" and "R" on the bow of our canoe. Did not really work. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solar Universe

I submitted an article for review and it was denied due to insufficient evidence that the article merited a wiki page. However, I cited at a glance info on the company from bloomberg business week and entrepreneur magazine. I also included 2 rankings from entrepreneur magazine that rated the company in the top 500 franchise list alongside companies like McDonalds and 7-eleven. How is that insufficient? could you please view the review page and get back to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Solar_Universe#Solar_Universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.132.77 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Entrepreneur articles provide no more than trivial coverage, a name in a list and something resembling a directory entry. They didn't bother to write even a single sentence on Solar Universe. Bloomberg is a little better in that regard, but it still covers almost every company, no matter how significant or insignificant, in the same style. The greentech article is actually better at establishing notability because it's an entire article specifically written about the company. My suggestion would be to look for more similar sources: Newspaper articles that cover Solar Universe in some depth. Two or three should suffice to establish notability. Huon (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]