Help desk
< November 10	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 12 >

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.

November 11

Draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R. Ross Holloway

have created and submitted a new article on an American archaeologist, R. Ross Holloway. I have received a response that it was rejected because it was a blank entry. It was suggested that I remove all text above my entry. I have done that and resubmitted but continue to be told it is rejected. Can you advise, please? SSLukesh (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft hasn't been resubmitted for review. That was still the old decline message which, while now obviously no longer accurate, should remain as a historical record until the draft is accepted. When you are ready for a resubmission, you can follow the instructions in that message ("When you are ready to resubmit, click here"), or you can resubmit it manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft.

Right now most of the draft's sources seem to be primary sources, research papers written or at least co-authored by Holloway himself. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him or scholarly reviews of his work (written by others, not by himself!). Maybe he received some news coverage on the occasion of his retirement? Or a Festschrift on the occasion of his 75th birthday discussing his impact?

The lone independent source, the award citation, currently isn't used for all it's worth. For example, it recounts Holloway's education and can not only be used to source that part of the draft (which currently doesn't cite any sources at all) but even expand it. And that's just one part of the draft that might be sourced to that award citation - I believe it could also replace the primary sources.

On the other hand, Wikipedia articles should cite more than one source to establish the topic's notability. I don't expect that to be much of a problem with Holloway - a named professorship, an academical award and significant achievements in his field should guarantee notability - but technically we do need the sources to show that others have indeed taken note of him. Huon (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Gray (journalist)

I tried to upload a photo of Captain Andy Gray with the first British Army Newspaper Unit serving in North Africa and Italy during WW II, Oct 1940. I own the photo, but it was obviously taken by the British Army as it is his regiment in full uniform. I have no idea if there is any sort of UK copyright on it from 1940, but I can't upload it anyways because it states "This article doesn't exist! The article Andrew Gray (journalist) could not be found." How the heck am I supposed to enhance the verifiability of the article if I can't upload actual photos and other information. Andy was pre computers and internet. But if you go to the British Museum’s Newspaper Library (http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk), they have hard copies of all the British Army Newspaper Units Papers – they also have copies of every issue of NME with Andy Gray as Editor from 31st May 1957 until 1st January 1972, but none of them have been scanned and digitized for the internet yet. I have an e-mail from the current editor of the NME confirming Andy Gray's importance and time as editor of the NME, but I don't know how to reference e-mails to my article. If you go to the NME article, you will find all sorts of links to articles on NME contributors who were a flash in the pan compared to Andy Gray. I have first-hand knowledge and photos of Andy Gray as he was my father's brother. I can't believe my biography has been rejected. I hope my additional references will help, but likely you will have to go to a library to verify the newspapers and books, or order them from Amazon.com like I did. Thank you for reconsidering my submission. JasMor (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing on close relatives is discouraged.

The photo is almost guaranteed to have been copyrighted. If we're lucky, it's Crown copyright which ends 50 years after publication - then it would probably be in the public domain by now (the British crown has clarified that it considers the copyright to have expired worldwide; compare for example this discussion which also explains the intricacies of British Crown copyright). If we're certain that's the case, you could upload the photo to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If we're not certain about that, we must assume the image is still copyrighted in the US - until 95 years after publication, I believe. In that case we'd have to argue that using the image constitutes fair use, but Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires non-free images to be used in at least one article - a draft is not enough. Thus, if we cannot be sure copyright has expired, we cannot (yet) use that image.

But a photo of a person or a military unit is not a good source anyway. How is it supposed to confirm statements in the article's text? The same holds for some other "sources" - for example, Gray may be in the 1965 Beatles award video, but I can't tell, he's not mentioned, and even if I were able to recognize him that video doesn't provide any information on Gray whatsoever. While the photos in the V&A collection are listed for the search term "Andy Gray", they provide no context.

Yet other sources are primary sources written by Gray himself (and that would also hold for the issues of NME for which Gray served as editor). Wikipedia content should be based on reliable published sources that are independent of the subject - we need others to have written about Gray.

Newspaper articles and books written about Gray, such as The History of the NME, are much better sources, and while it's easier for our readers if the sources are available online, that's not a requirement. You may want to have a look at the Google News archive; they sometimes have rather surprising stuff digitized. At a glance I couldn't find anything about this Andy Gray, though.

When you refer to print sources, you should provide enough details to allow our readers to identify the relevant work. For example, one of the references is the "Audit Bureau of Circulations (UK) Historic data on the abc UK website" - and somewhere in that historic data may be something about Gray, but the website itself doesn't mention him, a search for his name produced no results, and I have no idea what that reference was supposed to tell me. Similarly, the source for Gray's job as editor of NME doesn't mention him and thus cannot be used to verify that Gray replaced Sonin as editor in 1957.

In summary, there's just a single good source - the book. I cannot tell how much that book says about Gray, but to be considered notable he should have been covered in some detail (say, at least a paragraph) in more than just one source anyway. Thus for now I wouldn't bother with the photo and instead try to find better print sources that actually confirm what the draft currently says about Gray.

As an aside, I haven't checked the other editors' articles, but while I don't doubt that other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EdotFlo (Rapper)

Good morning, I am trying to submit a page for review. I am hitting the "save page" link, but it keeps going back to the page that says it is NOT under review. Stephanie M Williams 14:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EdotFlo(rapper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laydeeclipper (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. It did submit for review. The submission template appears at the bottom of the article and is eventually moved to the top by robots and the old "under construction" templates removed. I have reviewed the article and I've had to decline it. All the sources are posted either by the subject or his management. Apart from the lack of independent coverage, it is clear from the contents of the article alone that not a single one of the notability criteria for musicians has been fulfilled. This artist is at the very start of a possible career, but is nowhere near achieving this yet, and the article appears to be an advance publicity attempt for his first gig at a local club. I would advise you quite strongly to abandon the attempt to create an article for him at this time. There is no chance any other reviewer will pass it. Also, if you have any connection whatsoever to LC Management, I suggest you to read WP:COI for guidance when editing under these circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mobiles15:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the current mobile brand all around the world which is good and at the top most level progress and every features in it and with all the correct and current facilities?15:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.174.139 (talk)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. I believe Apple and Samsung are currently dominating the smartphone market, but ultimately this is a personal judgement call. See also Smartphone#By Manufacturer which presents a table of customer satisfaction by manufacturer for 2010 and 2011. Apple leads, but of course I can't tell whether that's because of their superior products or due to other factors such as the satisfaction of being part of the "in" crowd. Huon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Clark (race engineer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steve_Clark_(race_engineer)

Hello there, i received "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. "

as there are few information in the internet / website, so i interviewed the race engineer weeks ago. would like to know how to clarify this kind of resource? Thanks.

Ricci

Wikipedia requires sources to be published so our readers can read them for themselves and thereby verify the article's content. They need not be published online; print editions of newspapers will do just fine. But a personal iterview with the subject is not verifiable and is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources - basically, we need others to have written about Clark, not just Clark's self-representation. Huon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moving Day for MS

how can i add pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.47.245.50 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture is in the public domain or comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard or (if it's available online) request it to be uploaded at WP:Files for upload. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add it to the article.

But the draft's main problem is not the lack of a picture, but the fact that it's a copyright violation of the organization's website. I have thus blanked it and nominated it for speedy deletion. If the copyright holder is willing to release the content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Licence it could be reinstated (see WP:Requesting copyright permission for details; see also the example declaration of consent), but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. If such sources can be found it's probably easier to rewrite the draft from scratch than to bother with the copyrighted text. If no such sources can be found, the organization is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Casey King

Hi,

I cannot seem to figure out how to enter references. When I save and then look at a preview my footnote numbers remain, but none of the sources appear at the bottom of the page. They are all sources that can be found on the internet with links, but what am doing wrong?

Your help is much appreciated!!!

Thanks.Kittythedog (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To display references you need a dedicated references section with either a <references/> tag or a {{reflist}} template. I've added one and tidied up the references (for example, there was a surplus <ref> tag that made an entire section vanish). However, as the reviewer noted, those references are almost all Yale-Based (and that includes the sales blurbs for his book on his publisher's website). To clearly establish King's notability we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him or independent reviews of his works - if you could find where the reviews those sales blurbs are excerpts from were originally published, that might make a good source. Huon (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]