Help desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

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 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Edgar Wilson "Matt Wilson" (musician)

I submitted this article for creation and was asked by the reviewer to add references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_Edgar_Wilson_%22Matt_Wilson%22_(musician)

I have added the references and "saved" the article. There is no response and I am unsure if I am leaving out a step... Is there something I need to do to resubmit an article after the corrections have been made?

Thanks, Patrick Click (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, re-submission is not automatic. The decline message you removed contained the relevant instructions: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." You can also submit a draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I have resubmitted it for you. In the process I've also re-added the decline message; it should remain as a historical record until the submission is accepted. At a glance the sources looked good to me, but they don't have much to do with the draft's text, and the tone seemed problematic as well. Take for example this sentence: "Those sacred gospel sounds, the rock n’ roll redemption of the Beatles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ray Charles, Billy Joel, and the sleek funk of Stevie Wonder and Bill Withers, shaped his formative years and have provided an indelible imprint on Wilson’s repertoire and performance aesthetic." Says who? None of the sources I looked at egaged in quite as much praise or discussed the influences on Wilson's style. That sounds more like an elegy than a encyclopedia article. His performance at the 2000 Olympics seems unsourced unless that's what the Texas Senate honored him for five years later, and while I'm at it, a secondary source such as a newspaper would be much better for that Senate resolution than the Senate itself in order to show others have take note of the honor Wilson received. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silver and Gold Exchange LLC

Was hoping to get more details on what is causing the article on the company to be rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M_deanne/sandbox It was just basic details about the company so it can be added to companies in Keene, NH. Please advise if there is something I should take out or add to assist in getting this approved.

Thanks, Melissa

M deanne (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To get the article approved, its notability must be proven. Currently, the sources are primary sources, meaning that its notability cannot be confirmed. Please add external mention of the corporation by independent sources. A412 (Talk • C) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Path of Miracles

To Whom It May Concern, I wrote a scholarly article about Joby Talbot's Path of Miracles, and while I'm updating the references to include more secondary sources, I'm having questions on why notability is an issue with this particular composition. With Talbot's growing contributions to film and theatre (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Alice in Wonderland, respectively), plus his many other works published in the US, UK, and abroad, I'm trying to open a resource to others who may stumble upon this work and find interest.

Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated, and thank you for your time.

Austin.delarosa (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited; while Talbot himself may be notable, not all his works are necessarily notable enough for an independent article of their own. This work in particular doesn't seem to have received much coverage in independent sources - the draft's main sources are Talbot himself and the CD booklet. Other sources, such as the Confraternity of Saint James, don't mention the work or Talbot at all. I believe the only independent source that covers this work is the Classical Source review, and while that's pretty thorouogh, we seem to use only a tiny part of it.

If we cannot find additional reliable sources, it may be better to just merge a short mention into the main Joby Talbot article, which is itself in need of better sources. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any relevance or weight given to the notability of the author of the given "CD booklet?" The liner notes cited are written by the producer of the recording (Gabriel Crouch). Crouch is well known in the choral world in performing: he was the Head Chorister of the Westminster Abbey choir and toured for eight years as a member of the King's Singers men's chamber choir. He has numerous records under his belt as a performer and producer, including publications by BMI. His conducting has national attention as he now is a lecturer at Princeton University, heading three choirs. The list goes on, and this is all available via his Wikipedia article.
Does this add notability to Crouch's writings as an authoritative source that one may reference regarding Talbot's composition?

Austin.delarosa (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the liner notes were written by the producer, that makes them even less of an independent source. He may be notable, but he's still writing about his own production. We want sources written by people without a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zoltán Kodály

My article was rejected because there is already an article written on Zoltán Kodály. However, this article is not about that. It is about his COMPOSITION, Te Deum. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwhit (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the draft is supposed to be about the Te Deum, the title should reflect that. Thus, MatthewVanitas moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Te Deum (Zoltán Kodály). Of course the draft itself should also focus on its true topic. I'd expect an article on the Te Deum to begin with someting like this:

The Te Deum is a composition by Zoltán Kodály first conducted in 19...

And here it gets difficult because the draft contains general information on Kodály and information on the Te Deum in general, but very little about Kodály's Te Deum in particular - I couldn't even find a relevant date. For a good example have a look at Te Deum (Bruckner): No one could mistake that for an article on Bruckner; it provides detialed information on the composition itself and its history. Something like that is what we should aim for. Huon (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Chapters of the Imperial Court System

Feedback:
"This will never be an appropriate article. Wikipedia is not a directory--the place for this information is on the organization;'s web page. Not here. Please do not resubmit it."

I understand this well enough and am not trying to fight for something that is inappropriate but I was, maybe misguidedly, seeing this page as under the same category as the following:
List of Lambda Chi Alpha chapters
List of Wikimedia chapters
List of NIGP Chapters
The last one is identical to the page I submitted in the way it uses sources, external links, and its content, the only difference is formatting. Is there something I can change about the direction of this page to make it acceptable? Was this reviewer just very quick to reject it? I think it would be very convenient to have a link from the organization's page to view the chapters without having to leave Wikipedia, which is a similar case for why these other organizations have chapter lists.

After re-reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists page, I am not sure what criteria the reviewer used because they were not specific and I think they may not have looked into this very thoroughly. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the existence of other bad articles does not justify the creation of more. Wikipedia is not a directory.

Unless you can provide ample evidence that this list fulfills the criteria in WP:GNG, it is not notable enough for an article. A412 (Talk • C) 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The last one, in my opinion, shouldn't exist either. I have proposed it for deletion. The first two, however, show some coverage in reliable sources that are independent of those lists' subjects: Someone independent has actually bothered to list those chapters with some details. Your draft shows no evidence of such coverage; therefore it would probably be considered to fail the notability criterion for lists. While the reviewer's comment seems unnecessarily harsh, I tend to agree with him that it will probably not be possible to turn this list into something fit for inclusion. The main article on the organization already relies much too heavily on primary sources. My suggestion would be to try and improve that article's section on chapters, all of whose sources are currently affiliated with the organization itself. That seems more helpful than the bare list of chapters. Huon (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explicit feedback. I will attempt to find more sources to get it in line with the first two sources because i do think I can find more notability and I may resubmit it then. For more clarification, is this issue mainly notability or was the reviewer talking about some other criteria? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's primarily a notability issue; if you could find reliable sources discussing the chapters (as a group, not individually) in some detail, that would be a significant improvement. But as I said above, I doubt that's possible, and if some independent coverage on the chapters can be found, it would be better to improve the main article's section on chapters than to produce such a list. Huon (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed

Not sure why the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed is said to read like a advertisement. I have tried to just state facts and keep it neutral. The sources are all valid. They can be verified by going on line to the websites. In fact, Nevill Drury is acknowledged in Wikipedia, so surely that must be a valid source and is where I got most of my information. Could you please be more specific in what Wikipedia considers a valid source? Thanks, joeJoebzz (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft doesn't seem unduly laudatory to me, but I do have some doubts about the sources. The two online sources, Gallery East and Cynthia Blasingham, don't look like reliable sources to me. The former is a commercial website that ultimately aims to sell art, and the latter is just a self-published website without any editorial oversight. I haven't checked the print sources; at a glance they look better, but the fact that the author has a Wikipedia article doesn't by itself imply the book is a reliable source - for example, we also have articles on quacks and scammers whose publications are anything but reliable. That's probably not an issue with Drury, but I wonder how much that one page actually says about Reed.

Furthermore, not all of the draft's content is in fact based on the sources - the source for the exhibitions gives a list that ends in 2005, but the draft gives a list up to 2007. We should bring the draft's content in line with the sources, either by adding better sources or by removing unsourced content.

Anyway, I have asked the reviewer for a clarification. Huon (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the quick reply and trying to help me to understand a little more. The last source for the 2007 exhibition that you questioned is from reference No 8 <Majteles, Debra: David’s text at odds with the image. Arts, The Maccabean. Your Voice in the Community. 20 July, 2007 Pg 9>, as she talks about the 2007 exhibition. The 2006 exhibition is from the Cynthia Blasingham reference. I think what has happened is that you have no way of knowing the content of the articles I have sourced as they are mostly in hardcopy. I actually have pdfs of all the articles in question. Is there some way I can get them on line to you? It may clear up a lot of issues. Thanks again. JoeJoebzz (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While local newspapers like the Maccabean are difficult to find, that's not what threw me off-track: There wasn't even a footnote telling me I should have looked at the Maccabean.

I can't think of a good way to make the PDFs available. The newspapers and other sources are likely to be copyrighted, and I don't think we can claim fair use for the entire articles. Someone making them available online would be likely to commit a copyright violation. Unfortunately the Maccabean doesn't seem to have an online edition either. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, I'm Legoktm, the original reviewer. I just reviewed the article again, and for the most part the wording itself is neutral. I think the main issue I had with the article was the length of the Awards section. The article is not-NPOV based on how it was written, but based on what content was included and how it was portrayed. I think the good news is that this article requires very little work to get it approved. The suggestions that Huon are mainly what needs to be worked on. Good luck! Legoktm (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who Did What to My Article?

First, I got a message saying that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles F. Wurther had been created. The next day, I got this:

(cur | prev) 08:45, 13 November 2012‎ Fram (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (27,060 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Fram moved page Charles F. Wurther to User:TLee53/sandbox without leaving a redirect: Not even at the correct title, not a proper AfC creation at all) (undo)

TLee53 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, MatthewVanitas accepted your submission and moved it to Charles F. Wurther. Fram disagreed and moved it on to its current location, User:TLee53/sandbox. The title was indeed wrong: It's Charles F. Wurster, not "Wurther". I'm not sure what else he considered problematic, though; I have asked him for a clarification. I haven't read all of the article, but there seem indeed to be a few problematic references that don't mention Wurster at all, such as this newspaper article which doesn't support what it's cited for. Other sources are primary sources written by Wurster himself; those should probably be de-emphasized or gotten rid of in favor of secondary sources. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the title, I had for some (now strange) reason thought that the page was moved to AfC without TLee53's request to do so. I must have looked at the wrong version or something, as this was not what happened. I have apologised to MatthewVanitas for this mistake. I see no reason why this page can't be brought back to AfC for review, I'll not interfere with it again. Fram (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it had already been reviewed by MatthewVanitas, I moved it back into the mainspace to Charles F. Wurster. I also added a maintenance tag for the references issues. Huon (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The Ann Arbor newspaper reference cited by Huon as problematic has been deleted, and the text in that section reworked. I've tried to eliminate Wurster's own recollections (even though they were published in someone else's account of the organization's early history), but kept one citation because I don't see anyone else giving the date or name of the newspaper in which his letter-to-the-editor appeared (the newspaper has changed hands, and its archives, apparently, do not go back that far). I have, however, kept citations to Wurster's own published research. Having made the changes, I removed the maintenance tag. Hope that was the right thing to do. TLee53 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Article relies upon one non-notable source"

I submitted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Minnie_Adkins last week. It was rejected with this comment: Article relies upon one non-notable source. Rushbugled13 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see two issue:

(only) one source
source is non-notable

Do I need more than one source?

Does "non-notable source" mean that the author of the source is not in Wikipedia?

Also, I have been directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:42

This book http://www.amazon.com/O-Appalachia-Artists-Southern-Mountains/dp/1556700989 has a chapter on Minnie Adkins (the subject of the article). It is "a factual, widely-published book" so I assume it would be considered a reliable source.

So, should I not use the current source (it is a pdf of the catalog of the Minnie Adkins collection at the Kentucky Folk Art Center) which the reviewer called "non-notable" or should I keep it with the additional widely-published book source?

Thanks for your help.

Mshook (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Mshook (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions! Yes, you normally need multiple reliable, independent sources to prove a subject's 'notability'. The catalogue produced by the Art Center is not entirely independent because it has a vested interest in promoting its product, Minnie Adkins. I am guessing the reviewer by "non-notable" meant non-independent, or inadmissable. On the other hand, the book you mention above will be a very important source, especially if it contains a whole chapter about Adkins. Definitely use it to cite as much of the article's information as possible (citing page nos.). I also notice the article says Adkins has works in the permanent collections of several notable art galleries - if you can find proof of this it will help her meet the WP:ARTIST (alternative) notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Lisle - Pioneer

I have full family backing and documentation about my Great Grandfather that founded the town of Chetopa, Kansas. I have written an article for Wikipedia, which has been denied. This information is not only factual but historical and should be part of the town's history online.

Can you help me with this?

Thanks.

Bill McCloud

Soonermedia (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. George Lisle - The Pioneer. I see you have tried to cite a couple of sources, but have not given full information about the sources - author/title/publisher/date etc. It will help your cause considerably if you can do this. Put the source info between <ref></ref> tags. Remember information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, but subjects also need to be proven to be widely known and important. You'll need to show that your g-grandfather has been written about in relaible published sources, such as books or newspapers. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]