Help desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Just Punishment (Documentary)

Hi,

I created "Just Punishment (Documentary)" Wikipedia page, but when I hit "save changes", only half of it shows on the preview page (Release and Reception paragraphs are missing). Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouiseRR (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft was deleted as a copyright violation. Only half of it showed because the closing </ref> tag for one of the references was missing the slash. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thittuvilai

Sir, When can i submit my page for publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmesajan (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was submitted, but I had to decline it because it cited no reliable sources, making the content unverifiable. On an unrelated note, why is the article illustrated with images of a German grave and an unidentified child? Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Catholic Church Reform

Hello, It has been over a week since I resubmitted our article for Wikipedia. Could you please let us know if it is acceptable as is or if there is any further change you require? Here is the link to our submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Catholic_Church_Reform

Thank you, Rene Reid Churchreform (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Churchreform (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually resubmitted your draft, and if you had, it would not be accepted because it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I had a look at some of your sources, and none of those I looked at so much as mentioned the organization that's supposed to be the article's topic. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deneen Borelli

Hello,

I recently submitted an article for Deneen Borelli, but it was declined. Could someone please explain why, so that I can make the corrections, if possible?

Thank you. Danaricc (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prove notability, articles require citations to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. (See WP:42.) IMDB is not considered reliable, and none of the other sources you provided are independent of the subject. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Low

Quality control volunteer User:Arctic Kangaroo declined moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Low to article space.

Special notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, gives guidance on the notability of office holders:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in.

Low was a senior office holder at the World Trade Organization. Why shouldn't his holding an office at the WTO be recognized as an "International office"? Why shouldn't the existing references be considered sufficient to substantiate that "Patrick Low" met our notability criteria?

Note: WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about applying only to elected office-holders. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Low is less of a politician than an academic, and I don't see him satisfying the criteria of WP:PROF. Also, the list of criteria of which WP:POLITICIAN is a part says subjects are "likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" - ie it is likely that significant coverage in reliable third-party sources exists. Secondly the article was not declined on grounds of notability but of verifiability: The New York Times articles only mention Low in passing, effectively treating him as a spokesperson, while the draft's content is almost entirely based on primary sources such as his faculty web pages. If there are not enough secondary sources to serve as the basis of the article, then Low may not be as notable as his position suggests. Huon (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you know about the WTO and the International Monetary Fund? These are the two primary International economic organizations. They are extremely important, their decisions to extend or refuse credit to struggling economies have deep-reaching political implications, so I strongly disagree with you over whether or not Low's appointment to this International office satisfies the special notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN.

As for WP:ACADEMIC, various kinds of peer recognition establish an academic's notability, like being appointed to a named chair, like Lucasian Professor Newton held, or having an entire book or journal devoted to a restrospective of the academics work, so far. I suggest that when an Academic is appointed to a high-level office, like a Science Advisor to a US President, like Vannevar Bush, or to an important office at an important organization like the WTO, that too is a strong endorsement that the incumbent is recognized as one of the top men or women in their field.

You write: "Secondly the article was not declined on grounds of notability but of verifiability: The New York Times articles only mention Low in passing..." The NYTimes articles verify he held a position that we should recognize as notable, as per a special notability guideline. The project made the decision to have special notability guidelines -- deciding that the GNG were not always adequate. Congressional Medal of Honor awardees, and those who awarded the Victoria Cross, or whatever is the very highest valour award of their country, are regarded as notable solely after it is established they were awarded that medal, even if an RS only mentions the medal in passing. The same should hold true for those who have held notable political or diplomatic offices. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Quality control volunteer" - that's a nice title! The next time I get called "too fussy" or "an obstructive so-and-so" I'll just remember that I'm actually a QCV. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for "Patrick Low" and the top hit is his entry in www.wti.org, and a news search for "Patrick Low WTI" returns a few news and book hits. So he might be notable enough to pass WP:GNG. The problem with the submission as it stands is, as Huon stated, any claim to notability, whether by GNG or by one of the other criteria, still has to be verifiable by reliable sources, which this submission currently doesn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently read criticisms of the AfC process, where the challengers speculate that some reviewers regard it as a failure if the new article is subsequently nominated for deletion. I didn't follow the discussion as AfC was initiated? Is that really the goal? Alternately the more modest goal of ensuring the candidate article isn't nominated for speedy deletion could be the goal.

Many new articles only really come into their own when additional contributors weigh in. But that doesn't happen when candidate articles remain at AfC. The administrators who close {{afd}}s were chosen by the community. AfC reviewers are not vetted by anybody, and could be lacking in judgement, experience, fund of general knowledge. Yet, if we AfC reviewers who see themselves as gatekeepers whose goal is to avoid {{afd}} aren't we encouraging unvetted individuals, who have not had their authority entrusted to them by the community to act with an administrator like authority? Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT your google search here are some alternted google searches, which I suggest further confirm Low's notability: [1], [2], [3]. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed up the article and passed it, adding some additional news references. There is no restriction on anyone passing an article that somebody else has declined at any time - you don't have to wait for the creator to resubmit. Indeed, I have done this several times in the past week. I would recommend if you strongly disagree with a reviewer declining an article and believe you can improve it to acceptance, that you should do so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, the Afc reviewers don't have administrator-like authority. Article writers are given a message telling them about this help desk and new users are invited to the Teahouse as well. If the writer or anyone else feels that a review is unfair or doesn't understand what to do, they can leave a message at one of those two places. Then all it takes is for one of the many reviewers to feel that the article is ready for the encyclopedia, or to have time to fix it up, and it will be accepted. The issue here was not about being notable but about demonstrating it through references in the article. It looks like three Afc reviewers helped fix up the article (Thanks guys!). If you find another case like this, why not just pick appropriate references from your Google searches and add them to the article yourself? You probably have more experienced at this than most of the reviewers at this help page, and the beginning editors can use all of the help they can get, especially with adding references! Oh yes- the reason we try to make sure that the articles are not deleted is that we want to encourage new users to create articles, and having your first article deleted after you've just been told it was acceptable would be a pretty confusing introduction to Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Damas (2)

Could anyone help me to improve this article? This artists have one article in Suomi, Deutsch and Portuguese Wikipedia, it will be great to have it also in english. Thank you. CarolineAdartists (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the references, but many of them are primary sources such as his recording companies or Damas' own website. Worse, significant parts of the article, including the more grandiose claims, are not supported by the given sources. For example, the sources for the claim that "Damas made the first world recordings of several Portuguese composers' music" don' actually say so. Huon (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youn for the help and improvements done!!! Do you think I can try to submit the articule again or should I wait to try to find more sources? Thank's again. Caroline Adartists (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]