Help desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

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.

August 16

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Hello there, I am trying to submit an article about a hotel we own, but it is being rejected as advertising. We have our own websites as references, and it is just written in a matter of fact way, rather than aiming to sell the hotel. Is there anything else I can do? Perhaps I can ask someone else on Wikipedia to write it so its seen as more objective? Many thanks,Jenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.4 (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the hotel is simply not notable enough for there to be an article on Wikipedia about it? Using your own websites as sources will never be enough to prove notability by Wikipedia's standards. Some information about the sort of sources you need to prove notability can be found at WP:VRS.

You should look at Featured and Good articles about hotels and similar businesses to get an idea of what is required. For example Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) is a Featured Article about a hotel. Do you see how it uses a wide range of independent reliable sources? You could also look at the "Restaurants" section under Wikipedia:Good articles/Agriculture, food and drink. This lists sixteen Good Articles about restaurants, of various different sizes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U.S. Army Engineer School

My recent submission was rejected because of copyrighted material. I work for the U.S. Army Engineer School and our Commandant wanted the school's information on Wikipedia as we are a TRADOC school and our sister schools have pages. I used the style of our sister school, the U.S. Army CBRN School. Nothing on our recent submission could be considered copyrighted material as all I provided was the Engineer School's mission, vision, history and chain of command. Jennerk (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennerk (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe United States military publications (everything under the ".mil" top domain) are public domain so there is no copyright violation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger should be correct here. I don't want to cross the deleter, so I've left them a message asking them to un-copyvio the draft: User_talk:Tazerdadog#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FU.S._Army_Engineer_School_is_not_copyvio.2C_US_.mil_has_no_copyright

It should be restored in a day or so, please come remind us if it doesn't get done. Jennerk, thank for being up-front about your affiliation with the subject, so please do make sure you've read WP:Conflict of interest to ensure the article remains neutral. Also note the article must not become a substitute "About Us" page for the command. It needs to be an objective view. The article United States Army CBRN School has good formatting, but it really needs more sourcing to outside journalists and academics and how they've analysed the school and its career, and could also use some historical photographs of the school. US Military photographs should be uploaded directly to Wikimedia Commons, and on the submission form there's a checkbox for something like "not copyright because it's from a US Federal source". So if you can find some high-quality pics those would be great to add. A direct copy-paste of the AES's website may be a rough, rough start, but you need to add more external perspective to the draft before it publishes. But getting that copyvio bar removed so you can get back to drafting is the first priority. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MatthewVanitas! I will check back in a day or so. Thank you also for your suggestions. I will go out to Wikimedia Commons to upload historical images in order to add them to the Engineer School article. I will also read the WP:Conflict of interest to ensure that I provide a completely objective view. Jennerk (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Jennerk. Though it is legal to copy-paste USAES mission statements and the like, you'll probably want to re-phrase them for max neutrality (no "provides state-of-the-art facilities and the bestest methodology...") and a more encyclopedic and less .mil tone of voice. Also, wherever you quote/paraphrase the USAES, make sure you WP:Footnote that passage (use the "Cite-Template" button at the top of your window) to the page of USAES where you pulled the passage from. Another weakness of the USACBRNS page is that it has very little history about an outfit that's been around nearly a century. If at all possible, make sure your draft gives the reader a general idea of the school from its founding (and any precedent schools that were merged/modified into it) so they get the full picture. If you have any details that are subject to recurring change (Commander, etc) make sure to use the {{as of|2013}} so that editors will notice if years pass with no updated. You may also want on your Userpage (not User Talk) to write a brief statement stating your affiliation and optionally your billet if you're actually assigned to PAO this topic (though not your real name if you prefer not) with the school just for the sake of transparency so nobody thinks you have a hidden agenda. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to all inolved for the copyright mistake; I didn't think about the work of the US government being in the PD as I'm more used to seeing that used for images. Sorry! Tazerdadog (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Periodontal Prosthesis

Need some help in getting this article posted. Has been listed for deletion as being promotional. Please offer some advice as I would really like to get this article posted.

Mvilardi (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)mvilardi[reply]

The principal problem with your article is that it is too full of inflated terms such as "Dr. Morton Amsterdam conceived this innovative concept" and "a comprehensive understanding of all of the disciplines in dentistry working together for the benefit of humanity." Why is it specifically important to mention Dr Amsterdam and Dr Cohen in the article? Wikipedia article should stick to the basic facts, just tell us what periodontal prosthesis is and what it does. You might also be interested to know that a search for "Periodontal Prosthesis" redirects to our existing article on Prosthodontics, so you might be better off improving that article instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]