Help desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

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 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Jeanette Soterius von Sachsenheim

Hi Matthew Thank you for looking at my article. The situation is in my family are a series of artists from Transylvania. I have various documents and articles about them and they have paintings in various museums in Romania. Austria and Germany. These were all written before the modern world of the internet was with us.

My mother is now 93 and close to death so I want to get all this stuff 'out there' for her to see and to spread to a wider art world. I don't have the skills though or the time to learn them to do all this so need help. Is it possible to pay someone to layout the articles if i give you all the info including pictures and exhibition info etc.

I'm also struggling with how small the font is on Wikipedia......

Can someone help me please. Dylan White — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While online sources are obviously easier for our readers, Wikipedia doesn't require them. Sources such as art books published by reputable publishers or offline newspaper articles are entirely acceptable. For example, if London's Cemeteries says something about her, that's a perfectly acceptable source. But it's not clear what, if anything, the book has to say about her. Or maybe she has received some coverage on the occasion of the Transylvanian Museum buying her works? That should at the very least make the local news. But the sources must have been published - documents in your personal possession and unavailable elsewhere cannot serve as sources because our readers cannot verify what those documents say.

You may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. If I understand you correctly, you have a personal interest in Soterius von Sachsenheim; in that case it may not be a good idea to write the article yourself. I also had the impression that at times the draft showed some bias. For example, "she did a fine self-portrait in 1957" - who called that self-portrait "fine"? Some art critic? Who, and where? Or is that just a personal opinion?

While there are some "editors-for-hire", most Wikipedia editors are volunteers and work to improve the encyclopedia for free (besides, money would also create a conflict of interest). If you don't want to write the article yourself but know of reliable sources such as those I suggested above, you can request others to write it. The venue for such a request is WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, in this case probably Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession#Painters. Pictures by (or of) Soterius von Sachsenheim probably won't be helpful all that helpful; they may serve to improve an article, but not as the basis of one. The exhibition info would be better, and news sources or art textbooks mentioning her better still.

Regarding font size, it's probably easiest to change your browser settings: Most browsers increase the font size when you hold down the CTRL key and press the + key. See also: Firefox, Internet Explorer. I don't think there's a way to change the font size via your preferences here at Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nakili Film (2012)

I have been trying to get my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nakili Film (2012), accepted. Even after giving proper references, its been declined on the grounds of lack of notability. please make the issue more clear.

The main problem is that the sources you have don't confirm your draft's content, and even worse, they show that your topic doesn't exist. Nakili is not an upcoming Telugu film. It's just the Telugu title of the film Naan (not to be confused with naan where your draft links to). We don't need separate articles for versions of the same film dubbed in different languages; it's not as if the plot or the actors would change with the language. Instead we can add a line to the main article that it has also been dubbed in Telugu under a new title, and a redirect from the Telugu name to the main article. I have made those edits. Huon (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MIMS Ireland

I'm resubmitting my MIMS Ireland entry, but I'm afraid it might be rejected again because of lack of independent references.

MIMS is a widespread used medical guide for doctors in Ireland ( for long was the only one), and every single doctor in Ireland knows about it, but it is hard to find references for it (and not sure what kind of references?) The Irish Medical Times and MIMS (UK) both have an entry in Wikipedia without real external references either, so what's the difference?

I also tried to have an entry that does not look like an essay (I changed the 'origin' part for that purpose), but I'm not sure again if that will be enough as the only reference is an article published in the Irish medical Times and republished on an health website (this one is independent though.

It is frustrating though not to be able to get an entry for this very well known medical reference when both MIMS UK and Irish Medical Times seems to be there without particular reference requirements! Mcmousseau (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits, and the way forward is not the adoption of new, lower standards but rather the improvement of the currently problematic articles - if that proves impossible, we should delete those articles. We simply haven't yet bothered to clean them up one way or another. In my opinion the Irish MIMS is not notable enough for an article because the sources aren't all that independent (the Irish Medical Times also publishes MIMS, I believe) and don't suffice to verify major parts of the draft, such as "editorial content", "supplements" and "yearbook" sections. It's possible, though, that the reviewer takes a more generous view. Huon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17

Please advise me on the minimal revision needed to make the submitted article A Report from Group 17 acceptable. Which sections should be deleted, and what short additions should be made to fit the criteria? The article already seems to me more informative and carefully written than most that are listed at the Novels Wikiproject in categories ranging from Stubs to B-class articles. For instance, compare the B-class article God Emperor of Dune, the C-class article A Planet for the President, and countless Start-class articles or Stubs (A Bathroom of Her Own, A Boy in France, A Bend in the Road, etc.). These titles are randomly chosen, but there are countless similar ones. Is there a consistent policy here? It seems that I just had the bad luck to meet a Draconian reviewer or someone with a bias against fiction. Thanks for any help. Seoulseeker (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot guarantee you the minimal revision that would have to be made to get the article passed, and I'm not sure I see the significance - are you afraid of accidentally writing an article that's better than necessary?

I'm not sure the sources are sufficient to establish the book's notability. Both Motford and O'Sullivan mention the book in passing only; neither devotes even a single paragraph to it. Other sources such as the New York Times article or the League of Women Voters report don't mention it at all. I don't think that's the significant coverage we need to establish its notability, not even if we include the Kirkus Reviews article which might serve as a source on the critical reception.

And yes, the other articles you list suffer the same problem to a greater or lesser degree (the God Emperor article cites two sources that deal with the book and its author in detail, and other articles point out that the books won an award or achieved some other measure of real-world notability), but while other problematic articles exist, that's no reason to create more; instead we should improve (or, if necessary, delete) what we already have.

If the draft is to become an article, I'd say the "characters" and "setting" sections would definitely have to go. It would be great if we could salvage the "major themes" section, but right now it's original research - we may use the book as a source for its own content, but interpretation of that content must be based on secondary sources. The "explanation of the title" section seems a combiation of the obvious and of origial research - it might be best to merge the content, insofar as it's relevant to the understanding of the book, into the plot section. Discussing whether the Steinkopf Syndrome is aptly named is again something we shouldn't do without a secondary source. Huon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Huon, for your fast response. I asked about minimal required changes just to minimize the work involved, as I've already invested a lot of effort in this. I appreciate that the presence of inadequate articles in Wikipedia is not a reason to add more inadequate articles; but it seems obvious that there are a vast number of existing articles that are original research, less well-written, and about literature that is equally or less "notable." O'Sullivan mentions the book in passing because the reference is in his Dictionary of Children's Literature, where ALL stories are referred to briefly. O'Brien is a well-known writer who published only 4 novels, and there are currently no articles in Wikipedia about two of them. Though this story did not become as popular as the other three, it is important at least for what it shows of his themes and development as a writer. Anyway, I'll make the deletions and edits you recommended and try to find more secondary sources.Seoulseeker (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockneys vs Zombies.

why isn't there an article for cockneys vs zombies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.184.109 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one volunteered to write it yet. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Patrick Combs article

My recent submission for Patrick Combs was declined saying that Patrick Combs was only known for one thing, cashing a $95,000 junk-mail check.

I thought/hoped my submission well demonstrated through independent footnotes that Patrick Combs, although widely known for cashing a junk-mail check and performing a show about it, is also the author of two self-help books for youth that have 150,000 copies in print. A number far greater than your average New York Times Bestseller.

I also hoped that my submission demonstrated through independent footnotes that Patrick Combs is also known for twenty years now and to millions (through 1,300 live appearances and an interview on national TV with Barbara Walters) as a motivational speaker.

So although Patrick Combs is widely known for the check-cashing incident, he is not by any means only known for one thing - and many authors with less books in print and less public appearances are justifiably listed in Wikipedia.

Can you please advise me as to how to improve my submission to make this point?

Thank you. A54b (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC) A54b (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC) a54b[reply]

I think it might be difficult to argue that Combs' speaking career contributes to his notability. The sources for that part of his life all seem to be local newspapers reporting on a talk he gave in that neighborhood or on that college campus, all summarizing the same talk he gave at different occasions. To me that looks like routine news reporting that doesn't bestow notability per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If there was some non-local news piece on him that doesn't focus on the check, that would go a great lenght towards clearly establishing his notability. The baby delivery incident is even less helpful and tells us nothing at all about Combs (there isn't even enough context to be sure it's the same Combs, though the name probably isn't all that common) - but for his wife and kids, mentioned in the same paragraph, we apparently don't have a source.

And while that may not be all that helpful in getting the article accepted, I'd get rid of the "related links" section. Those links should be dealt with i one of three ways: If they are reliable sources and have something meaningful to say about Combs, they should be turned into references for that content. Some links unsuitable as references might still be turned into external links and added to that section - maybe the Cultural District would fit that bill. The rest should be removed. We certainly don't need yet another section of external links.

In summary, the article might squeak by as borderline notable, or it might be rejected again as not notable - it's somewhere in the gray area, and unfortunately I can't give better advice than to look for additional sources. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silver Cross Records

Hello Ritchie I can not understand why my first contribution here is not approved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Silver_Cross_Records Please be kind to explain me if you have time because I just follow other wikipedia contribution with same subjects in Serbia. There is no any doubt about what I write about this subject. Please explain me on this example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_Records_(Serbia) or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassivity_Music ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Centar — I try to understand the question of source but I can not because all article with same subject(record label from Serbia) use same source and all is approved --Gisnar 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While there may be other articles with isufficient sources, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. This record label doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we need such coverage to establish its notability. Sources need not be in English (although that's easier for our readers, of course); if it has been the subject of articles in Serbian newspapers, that would also be acceptable.

As an aside, you should check your draft's link targets. The "bands" currently include a professional assassin, a mythological herald and an English sci-fi movie. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will try to find more sources but I have one question. For.ex. my source is "Metal Hammer" UK Edition and this is independent source. I talk with owner of this label and he don´t know where to find this number on internet(sep. 1995.). And also there is more than 30 and more reviews all over the world (in Serbia,too) but this period is long time ago so there is no that kind of information on internet.There is only in PRINT form. So what do I need to do ?--Gisnar 09:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisnar (talk • contribs)

While online sources are easier to use for our readers, they are not required. If you provide sufficient bibliographical details to allow idetification of the source, print sources are acceptable too. Metal Hammer, for example, looks like a good source (depening, of course, on how much it has to say about the subject). As an aside, if I understand you correctly and the label was disbanded in 1995, we'd definitely need sources both for the disbandment and for the claim that it "has left a permanent mark on the Serbian rock scene". Huon (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I founded some print sources so I will add this to this page and delete any part of text which is not confirmed with source. Then, I will submit this page again and ask later someone to help me about find more sources for this subject.Thank you for your help.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The White Buffalo

Hello,

I am a member of the management team for the band The White Buffalo. I am attempting to submit my second edit for creation for the band's page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The White Buffalo . The first creation was not approved by Matthew Vanitas and while I have made a great deal of changes to the page, per Mr. Vanitas' guidelines, I would like to know what it is that I can further specifically do to get this page operating as soon as possible. Thank You The White Buffalo (band) (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Maybe you should leave it to others to write an article about the band you manage.

The article's main problem is its near-total lack of independent sources such as published independent reviews or newspaper articles on the band. With the exception of one NPR review, all other sources originate with the band or its associates. But we need significant coverage in reliable independent sources to establish the band's notability. See also WP:BAND for more specific notability criteria; I don't see which The White Buffalo is supposed to satisfy - and we'd need reliable sources so our readers can verify the band does indeed satisfy the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

±K½X´£¥Ü

±K½X´£¥Ü <<< help mem for ask — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.57.243.128 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need help with? Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US

I would like feedback please on my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US, which I was told "read more like an advertisement." This is my first article and in my zeal to document online sources, I included press releases the organization published on PRWeb. I'm guessing that might be one of the problems, but I'd like to know if it is and also if there are other problems. I tried to follow the format of other articles published on Wikipedia about other nonprofits. I would like to correct this article and submit others, so I would appreciate specific feedback on how to revise the article so that it will be accepted.Editor.corlight (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)editor.corlight[reply]

Yes, press releases are indeed not cosidered reliable sources because they originate with the organization they report on and because they aren't subject to editorial oversight. And there's a lot of press releases - even the SFGate article is just a reprint of a press release. Many other sources, such as this LA Times article, don't mention RaiseAChild at all and thus cannot show that it's a notable organization. For that purpose we must show that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. I don't think the current sources satisfy that standard.

There are also issues of tone. "The need for safe and loving homes for children is at a crisis level in the United States" - says who? That seems like original research to me, and even if we had a source, we'd need one that links that crisis to RaiseAChild to avoid an original synthesis of published sources - something Wikipedia shouldn't do; we should only report what other sources have published already, not draw our own conclusions. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]