Help desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Ltd

Hi,

Can someone help me please? I would like to know what I need to do to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Limitedto get it accepted. This is my second submission of the article and although I believe it to be better than the first, I know it still needs work. If someone could point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks MJK1987 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)MJK1987MJK1987 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have created and submitted two separate drafts Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Ltd and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Limited - you need to decide which one you are going to work on and have the other one deleted as soon as possible - put {{db user}} at the top of the one that must be deleted. Roger (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the first part taken care of, thank you! Is there any other bits you can could give a bit of guidance on? It would be greatly appreciated.

MJK1987 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is chock-full of vacuous but positive-sounding phrases that aren't supported by the given sources: "...to aid the profitable and successful growth of each practice", "operating successfully throughout the UK", "an advanced operating theatre", "important issues" (I removed that one) and so on. Furthermore, your sources themselves partly seem to be press releases by Vets4Pets. For example, VetsOnline has this to say about itself: "... you will find that we are a totally client-focused team with the skills and tools to infuse your strategic message directly to the target market." Thanks, but we aren't interested in having Vets4Pets' strategic messages infused into Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon, I'll amend all this and get a more neutral entry together. 93.187.5.4 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The AIDS Support Organization (TASO)

I have been trying to submit this for approval before publishing, however, my first attempt sent a blank document. My second attempt keeps telling me to submit but I get no response. What might I be doing wrong?

Sylvia

Sylvia Matovu (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a missing </ref> tag due to which everything afterwards, including the submission templates, was interpreted as part of one big footnote. I fixed that, but your draft is so promotional that it cannot be accepted. Wikipedia does not celebrate its article topics. Furthermore, the only source available online is the organization's own website, not quite an independent source. It would also be helpful of you added the footnotes immediately after the statements supported by that source instead of at the very end; that way it would be easier for the readers to ascertain which source supports which statement. Huon (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gandhi Nagar(South) Colony, Vanasthalipuram

Hello can someone please give suggestions on how to improve this Article and move into Wikipedia website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicsatish (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory, but your draft is pretty much that. You should find reliable sources such as regional or national newspapers, published history or geography textbooks, reputable magazines, or government census data, and summarize what those sources have to say about the village. Without such sources we cannot accept the draft. Huon (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted submission - copyright violation - further information

Dear all, I created a page for the Natural Resource Charter in which I referenced all information. It was deleted due to containing copyright information. I was not told by the reviewer which information was copyrighted. I copied and referenced information (Precepts 1-12) from a website ( http://naturalresourcecharter.org/precepts ) - I can only think of this as being the problem. Can someone tell me whether this would constitute copyright infringement? Thank you for your help.

Max MGW NRC (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max; you cannot copy and paste information, even if it's been referenced. Small quotes that are properly attributed are allowed, but full blown copying is not; It is copyright infringement and plagiarism. That will be why your article was deleted. You should also write information in your own words. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more information. Many Thanks Rushton2010 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cedexis

Hi - I'm a newbie on Wikipedia. My first attempt at writing an article is the one referenced above for Cedexis.

Background - an agency specializing in Wikipedia said that for $#### they would get a posting done on Wikipedia for Cedexis. I said I'd give it a try.

I posted the article on March 12. I understand that it can take weeks, but I'd like to be able to tell Cedexis something more than "it takes weeks." Especially if after those weeks go by the post gets rejected.

I'm losing sleep over this. Thanks so much for your help.

Frances Mann-Craik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manncraik (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected your article as the references are too promotional. Paid editing is frowned upon by a large amount of editors, and hopefully you'll learn something from this experience that Cedexis have no control over the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia. I would expect you'll be out of pocket for this. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear enough on this... I was NOT dong this as paid editing, I am not out of pocket for this - another company had made this offer to Cedexis for $$$ and I suggested they let me give it a try as a friend.

I was trying to do it because I think it's a worthwhile company that should be in Wikipedia. I still do! Could you give me more feedback on what references you think are too promotional? They are all articles written by editors of well known publications (with the exception of the Crunchbase listing.) Manncraik (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manncraik (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles about commercial companies need evidence of general news coverage. It's not remarkable for a technology company to have its announcements covered in specialist business sources and technology websites. I can see a fair amount of the article is copied from the company's Crunchbase profile. The article is full of buzzwords and business-speak. Unless this new company has done something particularly noteworthy, I doubt it will meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for businesses. Sionk (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]