Help desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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 27

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ENVIRON

Hello,

I had submitted an article for approval and it was declined with a notation stating it needed a little bit more citations. I did several searches throughout wiki to try and get a better understanding of how many citations were needed or any other guidelines along that route and didn't come up with any results. I have 18 citations in the article and would like to know what "a little bit more" actually means. If I add one will that suffice? Does it need to be twenty more? Would love some guidance as I've seen articles with as little as none to a handful published as I was going through conducting edits. Any help would be greatly appreciated so I know as I continue editing this article to get it published and writing others. Thank you! (Caswivel (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Caswivel. Wikipedia article topics need to meet a level of press or other exposure outlined in this section of our main "notability" guideline. Usually, inclusion in the encyclopedia depends on the topic (in this case ENVIRON) having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That guideline section I just linked to explains what that means; and our organisation notability guideline goes into more detail about the notability threshold for organisations.

I've just glanced at the results of a Google News archive search and have seen what appears to be deep enough coverage of ENVIRON in independent reliable secondary sources to justify inclusion of this article in Wikipedia.

May I suggest you take a handful of the news items (actual substantial news, not just company announcements) from that Google search result and incorporate a few of them in the article (2 or 3 should be enough), and list a few more in a section titled "More sources" or similar on the article's "talk page". If these sources satisfy the general notability guideline or the organisation notability guideline your article will be relatively safe from ever being deleted. (If it goes live now, with the current list of sources, you're very vulnerable to an editor challenging it's notability and nominating it for deletion.)

Once that's done, it's ready to move into the encyclopedia, and you can continue working on it there, if you like. Your account is more than four days old and has made more than 10 edits so, if this documentation is accurate, you should be able to make that move yourself by clicking "move" at the top of the article page. I've done it a couple of times myself for other articles and from memory it's pretty straightforward but if you want help with that, or, indeed, with anything else, don't hesitate to ask here or at my "talk" page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole - Please do not encourage beginners to circumvent the proper AfC procedures. A simple move from AfC causes many things such as project templating and categorisation to be broken. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not following you Roger. I'll open a thread on the project talk page. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Confusion (2013 film)

The film is releasing on 29th November 2013

Currently at AfD, but IMHO should have been speedied as spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Funicular pain

Can you please tell me why the source is not reliable? Med Dude (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable but one is not enough - we need a few more such sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the verifiability page before I wrote this and it just said text needs a reliable source that confirms the material. The textbook I'm using is pretty solid and it says what I wrote (in different terms, of course). http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MqUkfyfMcBIC I can probably find other sources that also say the same but can't understand why I need to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Med Dude (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gil_Gutierrez

Trying to continue work to edit this article and inserting footnotes. I am unable to view the new edits I've made to check them when I go to read. I only see a smaller portion of the article. There is much to learn and I don't quit easily. Thanks for your kind help. Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fixed the thing that was creating your formatting issue. The cause of the problem was one lone space. Howicus (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, more than that...I'll try to fix it for you. Howicus (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out...you were missing a bunch of </ref> tags, that go at the end of a reference. The format is <ref>(text of the reference)</ref>. Howicus (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]