Help desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

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 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Protection of Conscience Project

Re: Wikipedia Talk: Articles for creation/Protection of Conscience Project

The page was refused for lack of reliable sources, with the comment, “Please provide some independent sources describing the project itself.”

This is confusing. The first paragraph of the entry describes the Project. It is taken from the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, as the first footnote indicates. That is both an independent and reliable source. See the document at http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/publications/scopenotes/sn46.pdf

With the exception of the specific link to the advisory board and the external link to the Project site, other sources are independent, and I am not clear on why the professional journals, textbooks, NGO briefing notes, etc. are not considered “reliable.”

I am quite willing to revise the page if you can explain why the cited sources are unreliable and not independent, or if you would simply like me to add the link to the National Refernce Center for Bioethics to the first footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy7120 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is indeed pased on an independent source - in fact, it's so closely based on the source that it's probably a copyright violation. But most other sources don't discuss the Project at all but only mention it in passing, if at all, without providing any details. To be considered notable, the project itself should have been the subject of significant coverage, which means multiple sources should have devoted at least a paragraph each to the Project. Huon (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article : Alvin Anthons

Resolved

<@annaernithomas> Hi, im in great need of help here. My article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Anthons has been labeled as an orphan article. There are no article that i am able to link it to.. how do i remove the "orphan" box??

As long as there are no other articles that link to Alvin Anthons, it's an orphan and the tag should not be removed. Unfortunately I don't have any ideas to what articles we might add link to Anthons; he doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Huon (talk) Alvin Anthons is linked to List of Malaysian Indians & List of Malaysian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Malaysian_Indians & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Malaysians) but why is it still categorized as an orphan article? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaernithomas (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you fixed it now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Marson

Hello, I have just submitted an article for review entitled Charles Marson. I have a non-copyright image that I would like to add to the article but I don't know how to insert and integrate it. I realise that the article is in a queue for reviewing and am happy to wait for response. Thanks, DavysutDavysut (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a picture of Marson, and you can prove it was taken before 1923 (which is pretty much implied by his 1914 death), and the copyright on the picture has not been re-asserted since, it's public domain in the US and you can use the "Upload file" link on the left hand side of the main Wikipedia menu to upload it. When on the File Upload Wizard, check "This is a free work", then "This work is so old its copyright has expired", and then "It was created and first published before 1923 and is therefore in the Public Domain in the USA." Fill out as much information with evidence as you possibly can so there is definitive proof that it is out of copyright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwellPath

A little confused. My article for creation says "Article not currently submitted for review", but at the bottom, it says "Review waiting". Do I have to do anything else to get a review in the works?

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwellPath.

Dtjohnson79 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

:You submitted it correctly. Sometimes it takes a while to have the "not currently submitted" template removed. A quick glance shows that you would do well to add some references from unrelated third parties. The SwellPath website, google, and adam ware are all related, and don't help establish notability. --No unique names 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article deleted

A moderator deleted an article I was writing citing as motivation "overly promotional" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cloudbase&action=edit&redlink=1

I totally accept the criticism and, if provided with feedback I would have amended the entry. The complete deletion of the the article means I have now lost the content and will have to start from scratch. Since the page wasn't published there was no call for deleting it, that's a bit of a Nazi approach.

Sbuliani (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Stefano[reply]

That article was woefully unsupported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like news coverage or maybe reviews in reputable trade magazines. Wikipedia content should be based on such sources, both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. Thus it would indeed be better to start from scratch, to first find reliable, independent sources that cover Cloudbase in some detail, and to then write the article by summarizing what those sources have to say about Cloudbase.

On an unrelated note, I'm pretty sure a Nazi approach would involve physical violence, not just deletion of an advertisement. Huon (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined twice Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nyéléni

I am stuck with my article. I have changed it again. I try to be neutral, to find secondary sources and to write in an enciclopedic way. The first paragraph of that article already exists in the wikipedia in french. I am a bit lost at the moment. I left it for few months but now I am back to it again. I probably need more help. I have now submitted it for the third times. Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. Infonyeleni (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer said the draft reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, and I agree. What is the draft's topic supposed to be? It begins with a mythological woman, then it discusses a conference in Mali. The draft should decide whether it's about a specific conference, a wider part of the Food Sovereignty movement, or about the mythical person herself, and it should clearly state its topic in the first sentence, such as: "The International Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty was a conference on food sovereignty held in Sélingué, Mali, in February 2007. ..."

Furthermore, many of the sources are at best dubious: Primary sources published by www.nyeleni.org, blogs, videos hosted on Vimeo and so on. Quite a few other sources don't mention Nyéléni at all, and others mention it only in passing without providing details. To be considered notable, a topic should have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and Wikipedia content should be based on what those sources actually say about the subject. "It has been discussed in X" is useless if we don't summarize what X had to say about the subject. Huon (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LCT Lawyers

Hello.

I have submitted an article for 'LCT Lawyers' about two months ago. It was declined the first time on the same day for failure to establish notability.

However, since then, I have made substantial changes to the article, which has gone largely unnoticed. There are considerably more sources and I have maintained neutrality in drafting it.

May I kindly ask how long the review process is? It has been quite a long time and I am afraid it has simply been forgotten.

Thanks. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Logan.leung (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft had not been resubmitted for review; I have now done so for you. The "submission declined" message that you removed had instructions for resubmission; you can still see it in this old version of your draft. The new review should take place in a few days. Huon (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]