Help desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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.

January 15

To know more .

I just want to know the complete birth date of David C. Pack .? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.149.10 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (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) 01:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined

I need help in identifying which of the references used for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emil Wolk are not suitable? I would really like to rectify the page and re-submit. Thank you! GemW (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a fundamental problem with all the references, to be honest. The best reference you've got is probably this one. It's in a national newspaper (generally a reliable, secondary source) and it's a detailed article. Unfortunately, Wolk only has a brief mention in one sentence. You need references like this, but ones that talk in detail about Wolk - ideally with him as the subject of the article, and certainly at least having several lengthy paragraphs saying who he is and what he does. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Munich Legends

Hi there,

My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Munich Legends was moved to the "Article for Creation" page back in July 2012 but says that it is still awaiting review - in what sort of time frame can I expect feedback?

Hingram86 (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the submit template in this edit, presumably by accident. I can re-add it for you, or you can do it yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} (including the opening and closing curly braces) to the top of the article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NetGain Technologies

Article in question: Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/NetGain Technologies

Hello,

My article was recently reviewed and turned down. As advised by the editor, I have read this page and tried to look at examples of other pages you have approved and denied to give my article the best chance possible.

I work for NetGain Technologies in their marketing department, so I recognize that I have a natural bias. But I was a journalism major in college, so I've tried to use those skills to write as neutrally as possible.

The issues claimed for denial are that the company is not notable enough and that there are not enough external references. I have included 18 citations, most of which are from third party, independent sources (i.e.: newspapers, media websites, etc.).

I recognize that, overall, our company is not huge, nor are we widely known. But within our region and within our industry we are a huge player and rapidly growing. We are the oldest and top managed services provider in Lexington and as sources like CRN Emily.cedargren (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)(computer reseller network - a shoptalk news source) has recognized, we are growing aggressively through acquisitions and making big news that is gaining coverage regularly.[reply]

Could you please provide more specific reasoning as to why my article has been declined? I suppose I can put in more citations, but I'm wondering if that would make a difference... If it would make a difference, how many more citations would I need? 10? 20? Is there anything else I could/should do?

Thanks for the help

Emily.cedargren (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Emily[reply]

I'd be interested in Kevin's rationale too, to be honest. There's a lot of news coverage, which is certainly a reliable source, so by a cursory glance it looks notable. The main reason I can think your article would be declined is because a majority of the news articles are simply promotional in nature, along the lines of "NetGain today purchased Joe Blow Tinpot Technologies for £250,000". They don't say what's important or significant about the company - it's just simple fact reporting. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Ritchie333. You've summed up my sentiments pretty well! I understand where you're coming from (and where I hope/assume Kevin is coming from...) by mentioning the simple fact reporting. But, in a way, isn't that precisely what makes NetGain Technologies notable as a company? When we do things, not only does the media notice, they publish it. As the employee that writes the press releases about our company news, I can tell you that getting the media to publish anything these days, due to time/space constraints, is quite a challenge! Emily.cedargren (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've left a message on his talk page, I'm sure he'll respond soon and this will all be sorted out. In the meantime, why not have a look around and see what else you can help with Wikipedia? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion. I had a look at this article. The sourcing for notability is very borderline—multiple reprints of the same press releases or "articles" clearly based on them. Some of them are actually contributed directly by the company itself in the community "sharing" sections of the newspaper websites, e.g. this and this or to newspaper blogs that ask businesses to send in their news e.g. this one. Others like PRNews, are overtly publishers of press releases.

But leaving aside the quality of the sourcing, the article would need drastic copy editing for encyclopedic and neutral style. It currently reads like a press release/advertisement, perhaps unsurprisingly, but it's completely inappropriate. Just a few glaring examples:

With these services, small businesses can focus on their mission-critical responsibilities without the hassle of technology.
Through a NetGain Technologies managed security solution, companies not only gain the typical benefits of network security (protection from malware, viruses, etc.) but also management of their network, including testing and uncovering flaw...
Through key partnerships with some of the world leaders in technology, NetGain Technologies has access to a high level of hardware and software solutions on the market.
The NetGain Technologies team boasts some of the best certification levels in the region

What on earth is "boasts" doing in an encyclopedia article? Ditto "team"—blatant PR-speak for "employees" or "staff". It's fine in an advert. It's wildly out of place in an encyclopedia. Trust me, to a neutral observer it screams PR plug as do the other sentences I highlighted. That style of writing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article actually detracts substantially from the subject's image rather than enhancing it, but it's very hard to make companies (or their employees who write their articles here) see that. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those are valid and important points, but remember we're not talking about a featured article review here, we're just trying to make sure the article's subject passes the general notability guidelines. Once in mainspace, anyone can copy-edit, remove POV editing and clean it up - and they do! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, I have just copyedited this article extensively and left a detailed commentary at Talk:NetGain Technologies. However, my comments above are not remotely related to FA criteria. They highlight how this article violated neutral point of view, one of Wikipedia's most basic and key policies. Whether or not it affects acceptance, COI editors should be made aware when their writing violates that policy, rather than expecting the rest of us to clean up their advertorials. As for notability, it probably just scrapes past. However, in my view the sources (apart from 2 of them) are woefully inadequate. Every one of the remaining 19 are primary sources or clearly based on them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit more of a pragmatist myself. Expecting new users to understand the five pillars and the key implications of them from a standing start is just wishful thinking, and explaining them to each and every new editor so they "get it" is very hard (and sometimes impossible). --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Invention of Magic, and the Light Bulb

Hello I am asking if you could allow my Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Invention_of_Magic,_and_the_Light_Bulb) to be accepted as it is part of my Alevel Media project. It is also created by me, I am in the beginning stages of creating the claymation silent movie. Please reconsider you declination of my movie,

Thank you,

Sean Coyne

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Invention of Magic, and the Light Bulb

(SeanCoyne1 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A better A level media project, if you want Wikipedia to be part of the grading of your project, would be to significantly improve twenty Wikipedia articles. Evidence of your work could be provided by the contributions link for your Wikipedia account. (Or a WP:DIFF link of the changes you made to each article.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the draft, it does not cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports or reviews in reputable film magazines. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. Huon (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the author's comments on my talk page, and the impression I get is he realises his article is probably not going to pass AfC at the moment. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Van Mildert Boat Club

Hi, I'm trying to submit this article for creation. However, I'm told it lacks notability by the reviewer. I believe the article has a number of references from secondary sources and I am working on adding more. Also the article currently has more sources than similar rowing articles such as Lancaster University Boat Club,Clare Boat Club and so on for other Durham, Oxford and Cambridge rowing clubs, so i'm not sure what to do. If you could help I would be very grateful. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the secondary sources? I'm only seeing sources that are connected in some way with the organisation.

Think about books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess the secondary sources are in References 2-6. These are all sources independent from the organisation. For example, British Rowing is a national organisation which recognises rowing clubs. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the draft, "[t]he club is affiliated with British Rowing", so British Rowing is not an independent source on its affiliated clubs. Similarly I don't think the Van Mildert Association is an independent source on its own (ex-)members, and the various "results" pages don't provide significant coverage - it's just a list entry. Huon (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]