Help desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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.

July 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nothing More

I can't quite figure out what you mean by more resources I have found as many as I can, The album history came from the band directly. Also I can't figure out how to embed a picture.

If those sources are all that can be found, then the band simply is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article, sorry. "Directly from the band" would be considered "original research", something Wikipedia cannot accept.

Images must be uploaded (if they're freely licensed); once they are, the picture tutorial explains how to add them to an article. Huon (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Joseph Bench Press King

Resolved

Under

== References ==

I have your sample which is below: <ref>Name of author, [http://www.nytimes.com/article_name.html "Title of article"], ''The New York Times'', date</ref>

I re-writing it with our details which is below:

<ref>Stans Gym, [http://www.stansgym.com/mikejoseph.html "Bench Press King"], ''Stans Gym'', date 10/07/2013</ref>

When I view the page all I get is a {1} but with no text beside it. Please can you tell me if this is correct. I am sorry about this but this is our first attempt of a wikipedia page.

Please read WP:INCITE and WP:CITEFOOT as they give good direction on how to make the appropriate references. We need to have the references backing up prose in the submission in order to run a "verifyability" test over it. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters

Resolved

Hi, I don't really know what to do any more. I have referenced important newspaper reviews who clearly refer to Michael Wolters' work. I have linked to his profile at Birmingham Conservatoire, where he is the Deputy Head of Composition. I have references from BBC pages who clearly state that that broadcast, commented on and even interviewed Michael Wolters. Why are these references not enough? They clearly confirm that he is a notable person. He's one of the leading composers in the UK. So, can you please tell me what's missing?

I'm also slightly confused about my article sounding like an advertisement. Could you please highlight specifically which sections you are referring to?

Hillary SpringfieldHillaryspringfield (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started making notes on the sources provided. Help from other reviewers is welcome. Please also continue to improve the article in line with the notes provided. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That's been really helpful. I made the amendments straightaway and resubmitted.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Artist Rajasekharan

Kindly do the reference footnotes. I tried a lot..But I was not able do it correctly. Kindly re arange. Regards RRajasekharan Parameswaran (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)ajasekharn[reply]

The draft was deleted as a copyright violation. Nothing to be done here. Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Retina-X Studios LLC

Hi There, I published a article on Retina X Studios which I found a good company because I am a blogger and I researched on same. I also worked on other website in niche and found that other companies have wiki page so I gathered information on this company from web and submitted to Wikipedia. I tried to write as a third party still due to some issues my article was declined. I respect decision of editors still want to know which line they think is promotional. You can find my submission at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Retina-X_Studios_LLC Look forward for reply. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyruthe (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes.

I am curious. Please could you tell me the web address (URL) of your blog? Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Tourism Studies Asssociation (ITSA)

I would like to know why my article was declined at article for Creation. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshisina88 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes.

Your submission was rejected because it had no references. This is explained in the pink box at the top of the submission. You can click the links there to learn more.

Your submission is also worded in an excessively promotional manner. In addition, if any of it is copied from the website of the organisation, that is not allowed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: IP who posted does not show any AFC in his Contribs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

hi, can I know why my article denied? Thank's Maurizio Mangione

Please don't forget to sign your post at the end with four tildes (~~~~).

The article you linked to does not exisist. Please provide a better link to the article you take issue with. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farid Dms Debah

Hello everybody. Someone can help me to arrange my article ? It's a translation from a french wikipedia article. This is a personality that has many awards in his profession. It's too much complicated for me to adjust my translation for english wikipedia. I wrote lot of english external links. I really hope it's good. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_Dms_Debah (French Wikipedia)

I need your help !!! Thank you very very much :-) Katy

I have done some copyediting, but the main problem is that the references, with the exception of Le Parisien, are largely primary sources that cannot help establish his notability, or are otherwise problematic - IMDb, for example, is not subect to much editorial oversight and is not considered reliable. Much of the content cites no sources whatsoever. Some of the newspaper articles among the external links might help, but I can't read (enough) French and wouldn't be the best person to check what those sources should be cited for (if at all). Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sencha Inc.

Resolved

Hi Wiki,

I do have permission to use the information at Sencha, Inc. I've requested that my page be undeleted (was deleted due to copyright issues). Please let me know what other changes I should make to the entry, so it will be accepted. Sgmarch (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgmarch: The permission with need to be sent to WP:OTRS following the procedures laid out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. When submitting the permission make sure to indicate that it's for the above mentioned deleted page. Once these have been recieved and verified by the OTRS team the pacge can be undeleted. Please be very sure that the permission conforms and is legitimate, as forging that kind of release is a very quick way to being prohibited from editing Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters

Resolved

I incorporated Arthur goes shopping's suggestions *which I was very grateful about) into the new version of the article and then Prabash.A replied that nothing has changed. Arthur goes shopping said: Telegraph NfaN review: solid reliable source, four paragraphs about Wolters' work, so this is just about significant coverage. Guardian NfaN review: solid reliable source, entirely about Wolters' work (three longish paragraphs), so this is significant coverage BUT the article should note the overall negative conclusion of the review. So, according to the Wikipedia team I have solid reliable resources. AND I have incorporated the suggested changes. And then you're telling me it's the same. I'm very confused. Could you please tell me what else I need to do?

just to summarise: I have three reviews from The Guardian and Telegraph reviewing Wolters' work, BBC websites mentioning his work, his entries in the British Music Collection, an American Recorder magazine article on his work plus a link to sonosphere.org, which allows online access to a work that's exhibited in a museum. Surely, that'e enough?

HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in two reliable sources does not entail notability.

Reviewers are likely to find notability difficult to assess because there is such a melange of relevant and not-so-relevant sources referenced. For example, your source described as ""Sol Lewitt's Sentences on Conceptual Art". altx. Wikilink embedded in URL title (help)" is used to support the statement in the article "His work focuses on many of the principles highlighted in Sol Lewitt’s Sentences on Conceptual Art". But it does not support this statement, because it does not mention Wolters or his work at all, much less state any facts about what principles his work focuses upon.

The rest of the references have yet to have their relevance, reliability and significance properly assessed by any reviewer, as far as I am aware. Perhaps the review by User:Prabash.A was incomplete. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for that. I'm mentioning more than two reliable sources though: The Guardian twice, the Telegraph, the Quietus, the BBC several times, a Recorder magazine. How many more should I find? I understand your Sol Lewitt point and will amend it. HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, I've only looked at the sources that I've commented on. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have now taken all less "important" references out and made things clearer. It would be great if you could take a look at my new submission. Thanks very much.

No, I still can't find it. I saved the page link but it's now redirecting me to this answer. Please could you send me the link again as I can't access it from here and I'd like to print it out I remember that Pol430's reply was much more helpful than the generic one from the second Wikimarshall who declined it. Many thanks NigelMatador45 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ThrillMe

Resolved

Hi there

I asked a question here about a week ago. Did anyone read it? I can't find the text of my question now

Best wishes

Nigel (Matador45 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes the question was answered by Pol430 on 4th July 2013. Your question and the reply are still visible further up this page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mauriziomangione

I understand what you say, but I do not understand the difference between what I wrote and this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_healthcare_software I'm a professor of 'universities of Pisa and are a CIO for Public Administration, I do not need to use a promotional tone. I know that my English is not good. Can I still work on the text to find the right way to present it, or just wasting my time? thank's best regards Maurizio Mangione

Mauriziomangione (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are welcome to continue working on the article submission if you believe you can meet the requirements listed at the top of the article submission page. At present your article does not appear to have any reliable independent sources.

You may also wish to read about Wikipedia's policy on WP:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millis Transfer notability questions

Since a few editors have been reviewed my article on Millis, I'm posting my question here for whomever to address. I've been struggling with citing Millis Transfer's awards for environmental responsibility. I have outside references from publications but I'm told they originated from press releases. The information is acurate though and the publications that printed the information are well respected industry publications so I'm not clear why that's not a reliable source. Additionally, one of the editors directed me to look at a similar page created for Covenant Transport. It looks like all of Covenant's sources are their own web site. That company has not won any awards and or noted other "notable" contributions. I'm not saying I want anything done about that page, I am just unclear as to why Millis Transfer isn't comparable to that. I appreciate your feedback. Bringstaff (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any awards that would really establish notability on their own. A company paying its workers well is not hugely significant as far as notability is concerned.

Who suggested the Convenant Transport article as a good model to work from? Is it listed under WP:Good articles? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Suzanne Romaine

Resolved

Hi, I submitted an AfC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Suzanne Romaine which came back declined because the reviewer said one of the paras needed inline citations; but I'm not clear which of the four types of statements that require inline citations this para is thought to contain: there are no direct quotations; since the article is not yet published no-one has challenged any statement; I can see no reason why anyone would challenge any of the statements, since the list of publications that follows demonstrates the areas of research referred to in the para; and none of the statements is contentious. Please advise! simontcope 15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This person does seem to me to be likely to be notable by Wikipedia's standards, particularly WP:PROF. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that describing the research as "extensive", or anything else in the paragraph, is particularly contentious. I have asked at User_talk:DGG for further advice. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably notable. One of the provisions of WP:PROF is a named professorship at a major university. Nothing further has to be proven, and official sources are fine to prove it. The use of "inline citations" to decline articles like this is absurd--not even 3rd party sources are necessary, though they always help. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

National Identities article submission

I confess to some puzzlement. I did what I thought was a routine thing, i.e., created an article about an academic journal that lacked a Wikipedia page [1] Other, similar journals have articles, listed/linked on the page Nationalism studies. I did use outside sources, an article from a radio program interviewing one of the editors about the journal and one from the Times Higher Education describing the journal. I am puzzled.(Truegood (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The Times Higher Education article is a solid gold source with extensive coverage. An interview with the editor is less useful for establishing notability, and the other sources are either not independent or are merely passing mentions. One or two more sources like the Times Higher Education one should be enough to establish notability in my opinion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hugh Murphy

Sorry - could really do with some help on this. My article has been declined because "it reads more like an advertisement" and the reviewer appears to believe that I have referenced material written by me. ( "not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed"). I have referenced everything that has been quoted, all of which are in published works and can be verified. Murphy died 15 years ago and as a Record producer he was held in very high esteem by the many famous people he worked with. I have a lot of material that I haven't been able to quote as they have been sent to me by email, letters etc therefore not published, and I have been unable to find anything anywhere that is detrimental to him or says anything other than he was a terrific person to work with. Being a Record producer is as much about the personality and the ability to get the best out of the musicians as technical ability, therefore I can't see why these quotes are not allowed. I can strip it right back to just saying which records he produced BUT this doesn't give any insight into the person he was. Can someone please tell me exactly what it is that the reviewer is objecting to? So many people in the music world were so pleased to hear that this article was being written about him that I really would like to try to get it accepted. Help please !! Ned1966 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main problems: The lack of reliable third-party sources (your main source is an ebook that for all I can tell is effectively self-published) and the unduly promotional tone. As a random example, which source mentions his "extraordinary talents and abilities"? Do the Daily Mirror or the Guardian really discuss his "adaptability to working with various performers"? Which source says his funeral "was attended by many musicians who came to pay tribute to his talent and to his irrepressible personality", as opposed to people who used it as a social event to see and be seen? And so on... Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon for getting back to me. I DO see where you are coming from re the ebook, so I'm contacting the author to find out who the publisher is. Once I establish that - is there any objection to using it as a source then? He interviewed a lot of people involved with Gerry Rafferty, all of whom knew Hugh extremely well so it is an ideal source (as long as not self published?) I also take on board the use of some of the adjectives describing him - it's difficult though, as much of these descriptions are either personal knowledge of him (I knew him as a young man back in the '60's) or came to me from his ex-wife, who was also the person who told me about the funeral. I don't think the many musicians who knew him, and knew the circumstances of his death, would have regarded it as a social event. I will see what I can do about "cleaning" it up. Ned1966 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now heard back from Bryan Cooney - and yes - you are right - he did self publish, however he has written many books and is a well known sports journalist and has published other e-books (http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/sport-on-the-web/old-rascal-notes-his-50-year-journey-through-football/). He's pretty upset, asking if "wiki doubts his veracity" and is asking "Does this mean they are deeming Betsy Cook, John McBurnie and Jim Rafferty to be unreliable sources?"(His ebook is a biography of Gerry Rafferty). Ned1966 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of Betsy Cook, John McBurnie and Jim Rafferty, and I had not heard of Bryan Cooney either before I had a look at this draft, so I'm certainly not saying that Mr. Cooney's book is untruthful or inaccurate. However, assume for argument's sake that I self-published an ebook contradicting Mr. Cooney's. How are those of our readers who haven't heard of Mr. Cooney (and I'm generalizing from myself to the rest of mankind here but I expect that's the majority) supposed to tell that his account is correct and mine is wrong? Whether or not that's an issue here, there are enough topics with highly dubious self-published books to make Wikipedia by default require sources to be published by a reputable publisher. There's an exception to that rule if the author is an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but I don't think sports journalism would count as the "relevant field" in this instance. Huon (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from and I take your point about Bryan Cooney's book - but wiki is happy to accept quotes from newspapers, books, magazines etc - and we all know how they can get things wrong ! You could take this argument further and say that just because something is published doesn't prove it's correct. So I don't see the logic of not accepting published e-books. And you are right in saying that his expertise is not in the relevant field - although he has written several biographies they are of sports personalities. However I have now removed all the quotes from Bryan Cooney and also most of the adjectives describing Hugh Murphy. Incidentally, Betsy Cook has her own wiki page and both John McBurnie and Jim Rafferty are mentioned on many wiki pages, some in connection with Gerry Rafferty - although you may not have heard of them they are all famous in their own right.

Would you be kind enough to have another look and see if I have covered everything now? It doesn't say much about him as a person anymore but maybe there's enough there to make it worthwhile. Thanks for all your help. Ned1966 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greenhouse Product News

I'm being rejected because of referencing issue (as I'm suspecting is often the case for would-be Wikipedia authors). I've been through the site's referencing guides and read through all of the rejection notices. I just don't understand, based on those, why my sources aren't considered reliable/verifiable. They include independent sources. I've gotten two pages posted (Imaging Technology News and The Diapason (magazine)). These used the same types of sources as the ones I'm attempting to use for Greenhouse Product News and I really can't figure out what the difference is.

Gulpingguppy (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Gulpingguppy (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through all the sources you list that I can access:

1 scrantongillete.com - the publisher's own website so not an independent source

2 eplantsource.com - all it shows is that the publication does exist

3 lgrmag.com - the linked page doesn't mention Greenhouse Product News at all so why you even include it is a mystery

4 hrt.msu.edu - links to various articles published in Greenhouse Product News but doesn't say anything about the publication itself so like ref 2 it only proves the magazine exists.

5 mentormob.com - republishes an article from Greenhouse Product News, same as 4 it only proves existence

6 unh.edu - an article about a person listed in an article in Greenhouse Product News, again only proves that Greenhouse Product News exists.

None of the sources actually discuss Greenhouse Product News itself. You need to find an independent source that explains the importance/significance of Greenhouse Product News. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Francis Bagfield

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Francis Bagfield

I'm unsure as to why my article was declined. Clearly Barnsley midfielder Francis Bagfield is a notable athlete, and one more than worthy of a Wikipedia article.Dygaz (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says he is notable? What reliable sources have in fact taken note of him? Multiple independent sources must publish substantial information about him to support your claim that he is "worthy". "Worthiness" is not a consideration at all, it's notability that matters and notability depends entirely on sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Lane

Can anyone tell me why this article was declined? Did it have to do with improper title formatting in the references?

Thanks.

(Aeberman33 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What the draft lacks is independent sources that discuss Lane himself in significant detail. While you're at it please get rid of the Amazon.com links, Wikipedia is not interested in advertising the professor's books, you should try to replace those links with references to published critical reviews. The reference title errors can easily be fixed, it's not a serious problem, I'll fix them for you now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more than just fix the references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dissimilar Metal Design

Hello,

I have a question specifically regarding referencing. I wrote an article for submission, and it was rejected. I was provided with some suggestions for edits and one of the suggestions was to list more references, and or citations.

One of the citations requested is for work done with private furniture collections of bespoke furnitures. This citation is unable to be provided, as all of the transactions done have been through private collectors, therefore the sale is not public.

How does one go about providing a citation for this situation?

Additionally, most architectural projects do not have references, or online materials for metal providers. How else would one be able to prove work on projects?

Thanks in advance, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best, DMD

This is one of the problems with writing about yourself or your company, which is not 100% prohibited but is strongly discouraged. First off, it's hard to be neutral; even subconsciously, people will praise themselves and leave out stuff they don't like about themself.

The other issue is, as you note, you personally know things about the company, but they can't be verified by anyone other than you. So for encyclopedic purposes, that information doesn't exist. Encyclopedias don't do interviews or cutting-edge research, we compile existing processed information. If your company did Project X, and the only way that can be proven is you attesting it or scanning a receipt, that's WP:Original research and not allowed. If, however, the Seattle Times interviewed you and noted "His company did Project X", then that we can cite, because we can footnote it saying "According to the Seattle Times". The Times is a professional paper who wants to get things right, so though they're not 100% accurate every single time, it's at least a WP:Reliable source we can refer to.

So when we ask for references, you can only cite the company itself for extremely basic and non-controversial info like founding date, location, etc. For anything like awards, criticism, list of accomplishments: it must be WP:Verifiable with published, professional works that are independent of you and your company, or frankly it just can't be added.

Does this sort of make sense? We can't take you personally at your word, nor believe everything a given company claims since they aren't neutral about themselves. We can only report what neutral, independent, reputable observers have stamped their "seal of approval" on. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lana Z Caplan

Please tell me what needs to be fixed or altered in order for this to be accepted, I've altered things several times and I still do not know what else needs to be fixed. Thanks! :)

Anagram1001 (talk)

I'm not sure I see what the reviewer thought needed better sources - many of yours clearly are reliable, though many also are offline and thus harder to verify for most of us - that's not prohibited, though. One source that should be avoided is the Gallery NAGA website because that's her own representatives. That leaves the second half of the "work" section rather short on third-party sources. Huon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/julie

Hello, thanks for your help, my article was declined, asking for better references. Before I edit and resubmit I want to confirm what needs to be changed, on the description of the article being declined, its says what you can do: Add citations, and above its mentioning verifiable referencing. My questions are am i suppose to change my references in general, or just the way i cited them, and are youtube, twitter, and website personal pages considered proper references? the link to the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Oxnylia Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.4.209.254 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions posted for you at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oxnylia. Also, if you have a Wiki account, please be logged in while communicating, otherwise it's hard for us to reply to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]