Help desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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.

March 26

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elonzo

I don't understand why my submission is being rejected, because it seems to meet the Notability Guidelines for Musicians. Specifically "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works by independent, reliable sources." What am I doing wrong here? Dont Mislead (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word that is correct is multiple. It appears only one source is non-trivial, independent, or reliable. The balance appear to be blogs or press releases. :- ) DCS 23:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DCS, there does not seem to be quite enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Pol430 talk to me 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second time i submitted, i included some extra references which i didn't actually use in the article, specifically to establish notability. These included some album reviews- which may not count- but also four interviews in online or print magazines. Are these not considered "non-trivial" or not considered "reliable sources", or is it because they weren't footnoted or what? Dont Mislead (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI, in this edit and this edit you deleted some of those sources, not all of them appear to be cited as footnotes. Please re-add the missing sources, preferably as footnotes, and re-submit the submission for review. Pol430 talk to me 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did so, but it was rejected again! Help! :( Dont Mislead (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this article before and backed away because I was not secure with the sources. I have massively reformatted the article and since there appears to be more semi-reliable sources, I will approve, but WP:PROD still exists. :- ) DCS 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much! It's difficult to figure out how to do all that stuff. It looks great, thanks!Dont Mislead (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In search box type "Help:" and then what you want to do or need information on. :- ) DCS 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Hale

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Hale Hi, this has been my first Wiki entry. Apart from the references that I need to remove or be more accurate with, my article has ultimately failed on copyright violation from a page here http://www.orbit.force9.co.uk/behindthelake/html/khbio.htm.

This is my website. This is a page from an interview that I did with Keith myself (he asked me to do the wiki as I had all the info needed).

Check the page again - I have added 'WIKI - this is mine' at the top. Thanks. Mark Orbit (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure :- ) DCS 05:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC) :User:Nolelover or others have your answer. Wait please.[reply]

Go try the guide on donating copywrited materials and try contacting the open-ticket response system. Probably a better way to do it. A412 (Talk • C) 05:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now explicitly added the recommended 'copyleft' notice at the foot of the above URL which authorises reuse under conditions that Wiki recommend. Can you please re-evaluate. Thanks.Mark Orbit (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have restored the content of the submission. It is currently pending review. Pol430 talk to me 20:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fundación Hogar Nueva Granada

Dear Sirs or Madam: I have submitted and article Wikepedia talk: Artcles for Creation/Fundacion Hogar Nueva Granada with various revisions. i have footnotes, referenced, etc. Yet it has been again rejected. can you please tell me specifically what sections are not good? Thank you --LilliK 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilliKass (talk • contribs)

It tells you what the problem is on the review. Subtitles like "What the Hogar offers" and "Events" make it sound like an advertisement. You must write the article in a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV. Hope this helps. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cradles to Crayons

Hello my friends. I am trying to write a page for a well-known Boston non-profit, and for some reason I keep running into trouble. The allegations are that the article isn't neutral enough, but when I read through it, the statements seem to me to be verifiable facts. The other allegation is that the sources aren't reliable and verifiable. But I've used the Boston Globe and the Boston Business Journal, and it seems to me that you couldn't get much more reliable than the Boston Globe. Anyway, if I could get a second set of eyes on it to tell me what I am not seeing here, I'd be more than grateful. Thank you very, very much in advance. The article is : Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cradles to Crayons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsenco (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larsenco! After looking at the article, it appears that you have done a solid job of editing it for neutrality. I would encourage you to contact the reviewer who rejected it on their talk page to seek their input. In the meantime, I think you should make any other changes you have and resubmit the article for another review. Dalisays (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarmad Tariq

Hi Wikipedia,

I have contributed an article for a motivational & reknowned personality in Pakistan and would like to inquire as to when would this be a part of wikipedia globally? Please enlighten me.

Respectfully,

Amistad Revive Amistad.revive (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amistad.revive! The link to your article is not working. Can you provide a new link that does? Dalisays (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed Pol430 talk to me 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toby Bourke

How do I verify this story to your satisfaction. Toby Bourke exists and has recorded a duet with George Michael which was the only released record from Michaels Aegean label and it was in the top 10. Thats fairly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munsterred (talk • contribs) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Munsterred, Please reference Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Right now, the sources are not reliable. Generally, Youtube is NOT considered a reliable source, and the other two sources are not reliable either. Try to find sources that are recognized and have a reputation for accuracy that verify what Toby Burke has done. Once the sources are in place, then it should be easier for the reviewers to evaluate the notability of Toby Burke and whether he demands inclusion in Wikipedia. Dalisays (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Frank Trafford Taylor article

Please would you explain to me why the citation for Frank Trafford Taylor is not acceptable. The Manitoba History Society, Kiwanis International and the published journal on the history of the Trafford family are all genuine and reliable sources that verify the accuracy of my article.

I would be grateful for an explanation as to why the page is not accepted.

Regards

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfa3223 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfa3223! To edify my comments already left on the article, the issue is not the sources themselves but one of coverage. The sources don't provide coverage of the subject, they simply reference it. The sources should provide broader coverage of the subject (i.e. dealing with it in a critical way-not just mentioning it), so the reviewer will know if the subject is in fact notable. Given the subject is a historical figure, it may require sources from books or other materials. Dalisays (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to use books--71.198.213.135 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to use books, but Dalisays was just suggesting that based on the content it might be easiest to use books. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]