Help desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 31 >

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 30

Submitted Article Name Change

I would like to change the name of the article I have requested for review. It is under Brian Malarkey, but I would like to change it to Brian Malarkey (Chef). How do I go about doing that? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/brianmalarkey

Hannahward91 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Hannah[reply]

Since we currently don't have another article titled "Brian Malarkey" (we have a redirect pointing to Top Chef (season 3), but that's about the same chef and will be supplanted by the draft when it's accepted), the title "Brian Malarkey" is not ambiguous and we don't need a qualifier like "(chef)". I'd leave it to the discretion of the reviewer. Huon (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this editor's question probably stems from the fact you get a warning when you submit an article whose name already exists in namespace, though in this case it's not actually relevant. It does mean you can't use AFCH to review it, though, so that has to be done manually. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gordon Curran Stewart

The above article was turned down for publishing on Wiki - I would like some guidance on how I can make it acceptable. The subject matter is obviously of interest, so perhaps someone can give me some guidance...

Many thanks!

Wmdelamare (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like Stewart's biography. The first thing I would aim to do in an article is, right at the top, say what he is notable for. If you had to sum up Stewart in a sentence, what would you say? The problem with your references is they're either blogs (which are unreliable sources - since anyone can create a blog about any opinion on anything and reference it here), only contain passing mentions of Stewart, or are articles written by Stewart, as opposed to articles about him. Unfortunately, without significant coverage in reliable sources, he can't have a Wikipedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kaal Madhumas - (film)

Hi,

I have been trying to draft an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Kaal_Madhumas_-_(film)

The article has been resubmitted with the reason, "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

I would be grateful if you could assist in making it proper. I have already put enough references of Press Releases by English and Bengali Dailies, the official film website and a link confirming the entry to the Internet Movie Database. I am not sure what else could be a notable reference.

I have checked Wikipedia's reliable sources and it confirms "Sources that have published materials in print (such as newspapers and other periodicals) are reliable if their publication process is considered reliable".

Can you please suggest?

Abhirup.roy1983 (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key problem with your article is that it reads like a plot summary. It should give the background to how the film was made, when and where it was released, and what was the reception to it, ideally using professional critic reviews. Because the film has not yet been released, it may simply be too soon to have an article. You may need to wait until the film is released; if it is a commercial and / or critical success, it can have an article then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Information

Hello. I was looking at the newly accepted submissions and I saw one, List of Furman University people, that seemed like an odd title, so I looked at the page and found that is seems to be a direct copy of a section from Furman University Is this acceptable? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes. We have other similar lists, for example List of Harvard University people. Whether this particular list meets WP:LISTN is debatable, but the section in the main Furman University article clearly has become so long that something should be done - turning it into a separate article and using {{main}} or something like that to shorten the coverage in the Furman University article seems appropriate. There might be some licensing issues since this list basically is a copy-and-paste move, but I don't think that's an issue with an alphabetical list. Huon (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coldspring-Oakhurst High School

Dear editors: I found a newly accepted page, Coldspring-Oakhurst High School that appears to have only one reference, the high school's web site. Is this article not being held to the same standards as other articles which need independent sources? Am I missing something here? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools are normally considered immune to AfD on grounds of notability, so maybe that gets them through AfC more easily too. On the other hand, personally if the page creator is there and making active efforts to get the article accepted, I would see it as an opportunity to get them to source it rather better as well!

The school "logo" looks a bit hand-drawn; I wonder if part of the purpose of this article might just have been to make sure there's something to go in the logo image that Facebook scrapes from Wikipedia for Facebook pages of school members and alumni. Ho hum... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm more confused than ever. Here's what Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I am not bringing this up to be contentious; I would like eventually to be knowledgeable enough to review submissions myself, so it's important to me to understand the criteria. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education are relevant. (If needing a cure for insomnia, try Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments too.) There was once a belief that Jimbo had said something to indicate that all high schools were basically notable; it later turned out that either he didn't say that or didn't mean that or later changed his mind. In essence, I don't see that, as a reviewer, one would go far wrong by treating a high school submission the same way regarding notability as any other submission... but the nuances and the history are useful to be aware of. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Anne. As you're discovering, Wikipedia has lots of policies and lots of guidelines. There's no way anyone can remember all of them, and some of them might contradict each other, so you end up with things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Vidyapith. My take is that any places of secondary education are considered notable, provided you have one source that confirms somebody didn't just make the school up. Even if we can't find sources now, we generally assume that they're likely to exist somewhere. Because it's much easier to make up a company than it is to make up a school, we don't afford them the same luxury. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NHS. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've got it now. If an organization like a high school in which many people are interested is almost certainly notable, a page about it will inevitably be created by someone. Even though the author of the page hasn't taken the time to find reliable sources, the page can be accepted on the assumption that others will add these later, and that way the work that the author has done on the page will not be wasted. I see the logic in this. I'm not sure, though, that it's fair to the page creator, especially if he or she is a new user, who may be fooled into thinking that this is the proper way to source an article. Anyway, thanks for your help. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Santoro-Woith

I have just saved my draft but it says it has not been submitted for review. What can I do to get it reviewed soon?

Anoosha z (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is in the queue; it just had a stale template at the top of the article. I've swapped these round. At the moment, there is a backlog, so you may need to wait several days. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greater Victoria Harbour Authority

Hi, I'm working on an article here:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greater Victoria Harbour Authority

The article was declined for sources not being reliable. The sources I used:

-a published transcript of legislative proceedings.

-a published report by the Canadian government.

-the registered constitution of a non-profit society.

These are all published and verifiable sources. Why would they not be considered reliable?

Thank you,

-MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsimmonsGVHA (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all primary sources, written by the organization itself or by people closely associated with it (such as a speech by a politician asking his colleagues for support of the GVHA). To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports. Furthermore, the sources don't confirm all they're cited for. For example, the Annual Report does not discuss the GVHA's purposes at all; it mentions it but once and says that "two First Nations now sit together on the Board" - that's all. Even if it did, it would be more interesting to see whether they actually fulfill this purpose - see also WP:MISSION on mission statements.

You might also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about your employer or an organization you're closely associated with is discouraged. Huon (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]