Help desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 15

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

Is this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Savannah_Phillips that I wrote waiting to be reviewed? Debrafir (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. Since you asked, I have declined it because the sources weren't good they were blogs and simlar semi-official stuff. However: I have done a bit of work on the sourcing, and resubmitted the article for review myself, but if you think of any more improvements you are free to do so before a reviewer gets round to looking at it. Of course now I've worked on it, I don't want to review it myself. Rankersbo (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WECAN SOCIETY

Please review this article and publish as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombhaduri (talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#WECAN SOCIETY, your article was deleted because it was a copyright violation. Please see further information on that thread. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BICS

I have created an article page on BICS, the notable international carrier service company of Belgacom. the article has been rejected and no reason was provided. can you please let me know how can I correct? thank you for your time GFScib2013 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've had a look at the article, and some of the sources, and I think you may be better off expanding the existing article on Belgacom, which contains a brief mention of BICS within it, rather than creating a separate article from scratch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear Ritchie, the page shall be different because the two companies are focusing on totally different markets. Belgacom is hte National Telecommunication company and serve the consumer market, BICS is actually a global wholesale provider of B2B services. In addition, BICS is also not belonging only to Belgacom but also to Swisscom and MTN that is why I feel is sensible and correct to create a separate page. Can you please reconsider? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scib2013 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a suggestion. I found it a bit odd that no reason was given, there is always a reason given. In this case the original submission was (or appeared to be) blank. We need content to an article to judge it, we don't pre-vet topics before you write an article. The article you have written has never been submitted so has never been declined. Rankersbo (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have is that most of your sources are from BICS own website, or from Belgacom's. What we need, though, are independent sources that report specifically about BICS as a separate entity. This source in your submission is probably the best one, as it's an independent news outlet, but that talks about making international phone calls cheaper, and saying nothing about being a "global wholesale provider of B2B services", which, to be honest, doesn't really explain what BICS is or what it does to a casual layman reader. Normally, I'd take coverage in two separate articles as being a good sign that a new article should be created, but the existing Swisscom article is problematic, as its tagged as an advertisement and there are no references to independent sources. There doesn't seem to be any coverage that explains why BICS is important outside of the context of being part of Belgacom. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear , the BICS sources are there to provite info support if the reader wish to know what the product are in detail. If preferred I can remove them. all the other sources are public press releases (Bloomberg Businessweek, Telegeography, www.cellular-news.com, Telecompaper). Specifically the Telegeography source id there to refer the merger that happened from MTS ans BICS. In addition we provide also a source of European Community website to further document hte company creation. Regarding the definiton, of BICS being a "global wholesale provider of B2B services" we have now added "global wholesale provider of TELECOMMUNICATION B2B services" Belgacom is a public company and the company figures are released eve year in the Belgacom year report so this can in my opinion be considered a public and reliable source. I also would like to point the attention to the reference n.9 "BICS enables first intercontinental 4G/LTE Data Roaming relation". www.cellular-news.com, which is technically a very notable achievement. I understand that the text must be comprehensible buy the casual reader, but to this purpose, the several complicated technical names that have been explained by means of Wiki links. Could you please provide me with some additional improvements you would like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scib2013 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with citing BICS directly for basic facts, but you can't have an article that relies only on them. The company figures are public and they are reliable, but they're not significant (in the context of being notable enough for a standalone article), nor are they independent. You need all three of significant + independent + reliable for a source to count towards notability. After all, every public company releases figures - this isn't special.

As a first task, I would recommend finding as many independent sources as possible, and basing your article around that. I'm reluctant to give a specific figure, but Gallions Reach Ferry, which I created recently, cites six sources, of which five are independent, and that's probably the bare minimum I would consider for an acceptable article stub. After all, if creating the first trans-continental 4G provider is a "very notable achievement", I would expect news coverage appear in The Times, The Guardian and The Independent, or the rough equivalents thereof in relevant countries. So that would be a good place to start. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear Richie333 I have added relevant sources including Wall Street Journal, Businessweek Bloomberg, Telecom Page, European Union Site. Is this enough? Please remind this is not a consumer industry so the company and the news are very relevant from a technological stand point. Thank you for your comments. GFScib2013 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scib2013 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source is material submitted by the company, and not acceptable to show notability. The others are essentially press releases. The company is probably notable , so if you have WSJ sources, add them. It is indeed difficult to demonstrate notability of B-to-B companies here, but I doubt we want to relax our rules just now, since so much of what is submitted as articles amounts to advertising. If you do have sources, rewrite the article, using paragraphs not outlines--WP is an encyclopedia, not a powerpoint presentation. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear Richie333 I tend to disagree with the comments as it appears that our direct competitor ibasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibasis) has its own page although they are fully owned by KPN that has another completely separate page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPN) As BICS is an independent company, owned by Belgacom, Swisscom and MTN, I dont see how we should be present and related and only to Belgacom page. We have no advertising in the page, but If you think some paragraphs are not suitable I can still change them. Please let me know. Scib2013 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Scib2013[reply]

can anybody please help?

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

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) 11:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reply in question has now been archived from this page by a bot (automated computer program), and can be found about half way down this archive page; Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 July 4. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:48, 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/Sarah Franscesca Green

hi there!

As I am new here, I have submitted my article for creation and I do not know what happens next. How long does the whole process take? Will I be notifying? what shall I do nextCissy theo (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted your article yet. You can do this by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. Because I can verify Prof. Green has been the Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Manchester, she is inherently notable per point 5 in our notability guidelines for academics and your submission should be accepted. Before I do this, I note the article has some personal details such as date and place of birth which are not cited to a source (her CV at the various universities do not mention this), which you may want to clear up first before submitting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that! It was very helpful indeed. I have one more question: I want to have the name in bold letter and I used ' ' 'Sarah Francesca Green' ' ' but it does not appear as bold. what shall I do?Cissy theo (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huon has fixed this by removing the spaces between the apostrophes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomso (festival)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomso (festival) has been rejected due to less content and can be included in Indian Institute of Technology page but similar page off our technical festival with less content has been accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognizance_(festival). Please consider to review my submission.

Apsdehal (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)apsdehal[reply]

The principal difference is that Cognizance cited The Hindu, a major national newspaper, as its source, whereas your article cites Twenty 19, which appears to be a self published site, where anyone can print promotional information. I would look for similar sources like The Hindu - major national newspaper or magazine coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green

Thanks for your message. It was indeed very helpful. One more question please: I wanted the book titles to be in italics and I used the following style ' 'Borderwork: a visual journey through periphery frontier regions' ' but they do not appear in italics. I also wanted the actual name to be in bold, and i used the following style' ' 'Sarah Francesca Green' ' '. but again it does not appear in bold. what did I do wrong? thanks in advance. sissieCissy theo (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have spaces between the apostrophes. '''Sarah Francesca Green''' will give Sarah Francesca Green, similarly for italics. I've fixed that issue in the draft, but the main problem is the lack of third-party sources; much of the content doesn't seem to be verifiable. For example, I don't think we have sources discussing her schooling or her interest in gender. Huon (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate on what I said above, and on Huon's point, while I said that I could pass your article here and now, I would have to remove all uncited information and you'd lose about 75% of your work. Our biography of living persons policy means we must remove unsourced information on living people that may be challenged or questioned. That's why I left the article unsubmitted, to give you a chance to source this information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again. I am quite confused though; have you fixed the problem with the bold letters and the italics, for I can still see the old version. More importantly: I totally understand your worries about sources information. Yet, her interest in gender cannot be questioned as her first book which is referenced is exactly on that. As for her schooling, ok this cannot be referenced but it cannot be questioned. what else do you think might be a problem? thanks in advance. sissie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cissy theo (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since the Wikipedia biography controversy (well worth a read), we have set very high standards for biographies of living people. Anything that might be open to question must be attributed to a reliable source. Birth dates and places are particularly susceptible for this - to give an example I've worked with, it was widely thought that Keith Moon's birth date was 23 August 1947 for about 25 years, but it subsequently transpired this was false. We must make sure the article is right. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]