Help desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

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 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Son Of Merlin

Hello, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Son Of Merlin

   I am working on the Son Of Merlin comic Wikipedia, but it was rejected.

I am not sure why it was rejected, and would love some information on how to publish this article, as it is a job requirement. Thank you so much for your time.

SamKellie17

08:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamKellie17 (talk • contribs)

Hello Sam. The reason for rejection is given in the pink/grey box at the top of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Son Of Merlin (Comics). Click on the links there for more information.

You may also wish to read WP:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

pls advise why my article was declined. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.253.61 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a link to the article submission you're talking about? Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Desnos Toussaint Yed

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1PixelSA

Hi,

I have been working on an article and am struggling to get sources that are verifiable online.

I have a PDF doc from the Registrar of Companies with all the info on it regarding the person's job title and directorship of the companies. Would this help or am I wasting my time with it? If I can send it somewhere for one of the mods to check, please let me know.

Thanks

Shane Exec Director 1Pixel 1PixelSA (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing that a company is listed in a registry of companies does not make the company notable. See Wikipedia:ORG. Establishing that a person is a director of a company, as listed in a registry, does not make the person notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mobile Infirmary

Why was the Infirmary Health article not accepted? I have been working hard to take out an form of advertisement. Please help advise me on what exactly I need to do so that Infirmary Health can have a wikipedia page/article. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelhartley (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources listed at all? Please read Wikipedia:VRS and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Is any of the submission copied from another website? Please also read Wikipedia:COPYPASTE. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Premier Dead Sea Cosmetics

Hi there - I'm at a loss why the current article for submission is not accepted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Premier_Dead_Sea_Cosmetics

I believe it has a neutral and objective tone. If there is need for relevant sources can somebody please point out a specific section? Thank you in advance...

Yuvalya (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1990, a group of Russian researchers who studied the effects of space travel on astronauts. Part of their clinical research was to address the affects of sagging skin." --- what does this have to do with the topic?

"that contains the necessary active ingredients for stimulating and renewing the epidermal cells" --- which independent reliable source said so?

"leading" --- see WP:PEACOCK.

"rouge websites" --- are you sure that this means what you think it means?

I think you need more independent reliable sources as well. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boycott" section is not at all phrased neutrally, it very clearly favours one side of the argument over the other. Similarly "rogue websites" is an opinion favouring PDSC's view of a legal dispute rather than a neutral one. "The Marker" appears to be a reputable paper, so fine to cite, but Israeli-Companies.com is just a listing service so doesn't really "prove" anything. The BDS footnote is fine so long as you either describe the dispute in neutral terms, and do not provide a "rebuttal" on behalf of the company unless either a) such a rebuttal has been written by some neutral journalist/academic, or b) you explicitly state "But PDSC took issue with their BDS designation, stating that..." so it's clear that such is the opinion of the company rather than the editor of the article.

Aside from that, you have fluff like "received outstanding achievement awards in the cosmetic field in Europe" which tells us nothing. Which awards? Huge internationally-known ones, or just some "pay us $100 to enter and we'll give you an award" competitions? If it's not worth mentioning who gave the award, it's not worth mentioning the award. You also use other WP:Weasel words like "leading". In what sense? Highest sales? Assessed as top quality by the United Nations? Without specifics it's a word that does nothing but add puffery. The BDS and lawsuit controversies (which needs a citation) are vaguely interesting, and you have some very basic facts about the history of the company, but we really need to see some footnotes to wider coverage of the company and its significance, since all you have right now is one single Israeli news article that mentions the company, a biz listing, and the fact they're mentioned on a long BDS list. We need a significant body of coverage to prove WP:Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also told you roughly the same on my talk page. You have made no changes to the article to reflect this though. That gives me the feeling that you prefer to just keep asking different people in the hopes you will eventually get a different answer. Do read what I wrote there again, as at this point I really have nothing to add. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Rice

Hello, I made a draft for the creator of Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Then I clicked the link "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" but that didn't remove the big "Article not currently submitted for review" box. It's like it's stuck? 62.147.24.193 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's correctly submitted. A bot will soon(tm) come by and remove the grey box at the top, and replace it with the yellow box at the bottom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crunchfish

Dear editors, I wonder if I can get some pointers on what I could improve in this submission below. That would be very helpful.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crunchfish

Are there any specific sentences that should be altered or specific words? I could also remove some sources if you tell me which ones.

Thankful for advice, this is my first wikipedia post and I tried hard to make it accepted from your criterias of neutrality and objectivity.

Yours Sincerely,

Robert Svensson

Helsingborg Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsvenssonhbg (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no single specific sentence that could be changed to alleviate the problem, though a formulation like "completely dedicated to exploring touchless interaction" is literally incredible for a for-profit company - they're primarily dedicated to making money. The entire article is based on primary sources with no reliable independent source in sight, and it ceaselessly sings the praise of Crunchfish and its products without providing even basic information about the company. How many employees does it have, what are the revenues? Not even seed funding, the kind of information available for even the most irrelevant startups, is given. And while that's a comparatively minor issue, we don't use ™ on Wikipedia to denote trademarks. Huon (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kanary Diamonds

Hi,

I am having trouble getting this article approved. I have been working on it for over a month, it has been rejected a few times and I have edited and changed everything possible to go by Wikipedia's guidelines. I think it is perfect and there isn't more that can be done with it because all of the references were accepted and all the information is accurate. If someone could please help me figure out what else I can possibly do, that would be great. I need any help I can get.

Thank you.

Aelshi1 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Submitted to mainspace. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Essl

Whats your problem!? Why is none of this working!? Why can't I get any help or support! ? What's the joke here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldofWake (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude; you'll get better answers if you don't come storming in yelling at people who are volunteers specifically here to help you.

In answer to your question, WorldofWake, did you read the notice in the pink box that explains exactly what the issue is? Please read that, but in brief you have not provided evidence that Essl meets the rules of Wikipedia:Notability (athletes). That means it is required that you provide footnotes to newspaper articles, etc that discuss Essl and his importance. Bluntly put, we need to see that some serious journalist has found Essl worth writing about, because if he isn't worth writing about, he isn't worth having an article about. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

poor service!

IF YOU WANT OR EXPECT PEOPLE TO USE YOUR SERVICE I SUGGEST YOU MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY AND DO A FAR BETTER OF EXPLAINING HOW IT WORKS! BETWEEN ALL OF YOU "EDITORS" OUT THERE YOU'D THINK YOU COULD FIGURE OUT A BETTER SYSTEM! PROVIDE MORE PROMPTS OR SOMETHING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldofWake (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "service". You aren't paying anyone here money, we have zero obligation to help you. The reviewers are here because we enjoy helping people get Wikipedia articles published. You received literally one notice saying "hey, your article isn't ready yet, here's what improvement it needs" and then you start posting abusive messages. How do you think that effects our enthusiasm to help you and give you advice? If you calm down, read the extremely clear notices we've given you about what to fix, then life will be a lot easier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive messages? ? Wow! You need to get a thicker skin buddy! Geeze, so sensitive! Is there a big boy that can help me out? The thing is, NO ONE has told me EXACTLY what I need to do to fix it! And if you have, then please show me, very specifically, where! Or better yet, please resend the "extremely clear" information you claim you provided! The FACT is you haven't explained ANYTHING or we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Btw, I HAVE ZERO OBLIGATION TO YOU AS WELL! JUST AS YOUR READERS HAVE ZERO OBLIGATION TO USE YOUR SERVICE! AND YES! IT IS A SERVICE! MAYBE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD realize!

Ok, what you need to do is add references to the draft to show that the person you wrote the draft about is notable. References should be reliable, independent of the article's subject, and cover the subject in detail. Take a look at WP:IRS for more help with finding good sources. Then, add the sources to the article. WP:REFBEGIN explains how to do that better than I could. Hope this helps. And please, stop shouting. Howicus (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Cooperation is key here. I hope you do not write complaints to companies like this. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References? We ARE the World of Wake. We sanction the professional athletes in the sport. We ARE the reference. How else are we supposed to submit information about the professional athletes in the sport?

Very soon perhaps there will be a new AfC submission Wikipedia As A Service (WaaS) which will describe how WaaS is a revolutionary new principle and the leading companies involved are.... (etc) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Is World of Wake a recognized governing body for your sport? I cannot find any mention of it, apart from phrases on various Facebook and YouTube pages, which are not considered reliable sources.

Also, your user page implies that your intent is to use Wikipedia as a means to raise the profile of your sport. That conflicts with the policy that Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising. It is about topics that are notable to the world at large, as evidenced by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To be blunt, you aren't the best judge of your own notability. If there is significant coverage from third-party sources, then there may be merit for an article. --Drm310 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with improving articles about Wakeboarding and simliar articles, and is high suggested. About the person, I can't find any articles or any information about him. That's the biggest problem with the article being accepted or surviving for long in mainspace. LionMans Account (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reported the user to UAA. Now blocked. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]