Help desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

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.

September 18

I want wikipedia or wikileaks to create and Article

I keep trying to ask for an article to be created on a certain town called Yukon, Pennsylvania. But it gets me nowhere. I lived there for 19 years and the town is full of histpry like it use to have a coal mine, a School which both structures are still standing. So can you please help me or guide me on how to ask for the page to be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.182 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list at WP:RA of Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Requested_Articles#Places which still need articles. You could add this town to that list, but the page has a better chance of being created if you search for reliable sources which you cite to write an article on the topic yourself. An online search for books mentioning "Yukon, Pennsylvania" finds plenty of results so the topic is valid. K7L (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gardline Shipping Ltd

Hello,

What do I need to do to allow this article to be published? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gardline Shipping Ltd

~~GeorgeAJMarshall~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeAJMarshall (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, it cites no reliable sources. Its only references are the company itself and an existing Wikipedia article on Gardline group. By relying entirely on the company's own websites for info, the resulting page looks more like an advertisement than a neutral encyclopaedia article. The existing Gardline group article is itself marginal as it's just a list of divisions cited from a single source. I would suggest fixing the existing Gardline group page first by finding extensive coverage in independent sources (if some exists) and expanding the page beyond a simple list, citing those sources. K7L (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JubSoup

HI , a little help with adding a wiki page please thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.174.75 (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific about the help you need? The most important problem is that you don't show JubSoup has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such sources are necessary both to establish JubSoup's notability and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Furhtermore, the draft reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article - the "booking" phone number is highly inappropriate. Huon (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think claims like "Jubsoup is the future of music as he is a diverse talented musician" might also be a wee bit problematic as a violation of requirements for neutrality? Please do not post commercial advertising to Wikipedia. K7L (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rocket Girl

Hello, Could you please let me know if the article references are correct - Two appear to be in red, which I feel may be hindering the contribution from becoming made public. In addition, could you please let me know whether the article is being reviewed or has been already. Slightly confused as the note on screen states that the article has not been submitted for approval, yet it has indeed been submitted around three times. Look forward to your direction. Kind regards, --jugdev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that issue: the {{cite stuff}} templates all require a title and will produce such a warning if no title is given. Since one of the two problematic references was to Wikipedia itself (which would be circular) I removed it outright.

The draft hasn't yet been reviewed; the "not yet submitted" message is a relic that will soon be removed by a bot. As long as there's a "review waitinig" message and the draft is categorized among the pending AfC submissions (the very last line), it's awaiting review (but because there's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions that may take some time.

The draft's references are currently a mixed bunch. As noted above I got rid of the Wikipedia page used as a reference - Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Many others don't cover Rocket Girl in any detail but just mention the name. The BBC is a reliable source, but the website linked to does not confirm the sentence it's cited for - while Rocket Girl is used as an example of an indie record lable, there's no indication that it was the focus of an episode of a TV show (as opposed to a video clip of less than four minutes). Several other claims made in the article - such as the award - are entirely unsourced. My suggestion would be to get rid of the trivial references, to emphasize those that present a little more information (such as the interview with Pennyblackmusic), and to make sure that the article's content is actually supported by the references provided. I'm not sure whether the sources are sufficient to establish Rocket Girl's notability; see also WP:CORP for company-specific notability criteria. Huon (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the "Auntie Beeb mentioned us..." use of citations is that the article doesn't actually indicate what the BBC had to say about this company, if anything of interest. Normally the purpose of citing reliable sources is to use the information in those sources to build the actual article. To cite BBC just to claim to have been noticed by the BBC (and then use nothing from the actual info in the Beeb coverage) is name dropping and adds nothing useful to the page. K7L (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William E. Ingram, Jr.

I do not understand why this article submission was declined.Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William E. Ingram, Jr. The sources that are used are official government sources. There are many articles about Generals just like this one citing almost identical official government sources.

Why are these government sources not crediable enough? Okanos (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, to establish someone's notability we require significant coverage in independent sources - for a soldier that would probably exclude many .mil sources (these are basically press releases by his employer or even by his subordinates). Furthermore, all sources that do more than drop his name focus on Ingram's appointment as Army National Guard director - see WP:BLP1E. Secondly, we require the article's content to be supported by the sources provided. That's not the case; none of the sources give his appointmets at the level of detail provided in the article, none mention his civilian career with the North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association, none give the dates of rank, ... need I go on?

Also, other insufficiently sourced articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article Matt Mickei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matt_Mickiewicz

Hi! It says on the top that it has not been submitted for review, however, if I scroll down it says that it has a review waiting. Super confused about which one it is. Can you update me on the status please or what I need to add to it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.116.249 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been submitted for review. The "not yet submitted" message is a relic that will soon be taken care of by a bot. As long as there's a "review waiting" message and the article is categorized among the pending AfC submissions, it's awaiting review.

The draft currently has two problems: Firstly, the wikilinks: A link to another Wikipedia article is created by a pair of square brackets: "[[internet entrepreneur]]" gives "internet entrepreneur" - these links do not require the full URL of the target page (in fact, adding the full URL will break the link). External links (to websites other than Wikipedia) are produced by single square brackets and require the full URL; "[http://www.google.com This link]" will give "This link". See Help:Link for details. I fixed the links currently in the article (and removed some redundant wikilinks, see WP:Overlinking); please take care if you add new links in the future. The article body usually should not contain any external links at all; I removed them to a dedicated "external links" section. See WP:EL.

Secondly, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the draft's statements. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks so much for getting back to me so quickly. Ill fix the references (as soon as I can figure out how to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.116.249 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vadim Gushchin

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vadim Gushchin Good day! Tell me, please, what should I do to check my article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vadim_Гущин Thank you!--Irinaoborina (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of the article is mostly a collection of quotes, most of the second half is just a couple of tables. There isn't much of a body. My suggestion would be to rewrite those quotes in your own words and turn them into a section on the reception of Gushchin's work, or possibly on his style. The lists of exhibitions and collections could probably be shortened; for example you could remove all those which are currently unsourced. Furthermore, many of the references seem to be primary sources, such as the exhibitions' websites as sources on the exhibitions. I would de-emphasize those in favor of the truly independent sources, such as newspaper coverage.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "checking the article", but it's currently awaiting review; due to the massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, that will take some time, probably a week or even two. Huon (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Wll5191/sandbox

where is track ST Leger that Lester Piggott won with Nijinsky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wll5191 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Huon (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]