Help desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 15

Review of Uttaranchal University

Hi there, I have scanned documents for the people listed in the Notable Alumini section of my article but I am unsure what to do with said docs. They are images(jpg) 05:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not generally have any use or need for scanned documents. Instead, you may possibly be able to cite some of the documents as sources for facts that you have written in your article submission. To learn more about how to cite sources, please read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Please note your article submission also still has problems with its non-neutral and non-encyclopedic tone; for example it should not say things like "Some of our notable alumni". Nor indeed should it say things like "committed to providing accurate, efficient, fast and user friendly services based on the university objectives while performing a continuous quality services to fulfill user’s need, community and others". Is that copied from somewhere? If so, please see Wikipedia:COPYPASTE. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. Yeah, I sent a writeup to the univ guys to factchecking, seems they rewrote a few parts...I just assumed they didn't and copy-pasted what I thought was my own writeup... I haven't yet proofread it hence why I haven't submitted it for review. So I guess I don't need, 'proof' to mention the alumini then? 08:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In general one should always include sources ("proof") when adding material to Wikipedia. It's possible, however, that an article submission wouldn't be rejected just because some of the alumni listed lack citations to confirm they are indeed alumni of that organisation.

As a separate note, Wikipedia articles should only list alumni who are notable. That normally means alumni about whom a Wikipedia article already exists, or could be written. Getting high marks in examinations does not confer notability. Thus most of the alumni you list would be better left out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you again. I'm just looking at other univ articles to get an idea of how a univ article is written and they had a notable alumini column so I just assumed that was 'standard'. —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most established universities have at least some alumni about whom there has been significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

If looking at other university articles to use as examples, you should consider those listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Education. These are recognised Good Articles, which have had to meet basic standards. Existing articles not up to those standards may not be useful examples for you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As far as I can tell, Universities are inherently notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (which is more for high / secondary schools, which is a tier down from that) and provided you've got one source that shows it really is a university and not just a made up one, the article should pass, regardless of how unreferenced any of it is. As for how to do a university article, try University of Michigan - it's a featured article so should be pretty much exactly what you want to model your article on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the notability of the topic. I am questioning, first, the promotional tone of some of the submission, second, the notability of some of the alumni currently listed, third, the possibility of copyright violation, and fourth, the wisdom of adding large quantities of completely unreferenced material to Wikipedia. WP:MINREF is also relevant. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An 95% unreferenced article that nonetheless provides enough sourcing to verify it as being notable is still a pass, as everything else can be fixed by regular editing. WP:MINREF is only really relevant for BLPs in the context of passing AfC submissions. The copyright violation is a fair comment, though. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to undertake regular editing in order to make the draft acceptable, however I have been encouraged by User:DGG not to pass submissions whose text is excessively or overtly promotional. In passing, I would note that WP:MINREF is not limited solely to biographical articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solanum pubescens

(snip draft)

This page is for questions about submissions via the Articles for Creation process. Plants are often considered notable provided a source exists verifying their existence. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants may be able to help you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shelter Cluster

I just want to make sure that I understand the reason for rejection.

Am I right to assume that the reason was that there were not enough secondary resources? As a matter of fact the article contains three secondary resources (References 2, 5 and 6), however 5 is hosted on the Shelter Cluster's server, even though it is a third party document. Is that why it didn't count? A Memorandum of Understanding between the Red Cross and the UN is a pretty big deal, so I'm surprised.
There are a lot of evaluations of the Shelter Cluster, however most of these have been paid for by the Shelter Cluster, even though they were done by external evaluators. Would these documents count as sources or not?

Thanks! Best, (Timoluege (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Generally, I find it best to get as many independent sources as you possibly can. Having said that, I looked at the three independent sources and can offer the following view. The IASC source states "This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content" which implies it's a self-published source ie: anyone can print what they like without peer view. This is a shame, as endorsement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would be a good claim to notability, otherwise. There's another UNHCR source here that mentions a "shelter cluster", but I think that's just using it as a term. Hopefully somebody else will be able to suggest further ideas. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walden C. Rhines

I am trying to post the biography of the CEO of one of the largest EDA companies, Mentor Graphics. The CEOs of the other two industry leaders (Cadence and Synopsys) are on Wikipedia. But my submissions for Wally Rhines have been denied twice. I can't tell if it's because someone thinks he is not notable enough, or that his biography has been plagiarized from the biography on the Mentor Graphics company web site. Since I am an emplyee of Mentor Graphics and doing this on behalf of Dr. Rhines, I don't think copyright is an issue. I have tried to cutomize his biography, but there is only so much you can change and still stay with the basic facts. So can you recommend an approach or at least tell me why the article is rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glforte (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not really that Rhines is not notable enough, but that Wikipedia decides notability in a specific and unusual manner. Common sense says that the CEO of a billion dollar company is clearly notable. But Wikipedia says that an article (with some few exceptions) needs to demonstrate notability by providing references to multiple independent reliable sources that describe the subject (in this case, Rhines) in detail. That requirement is summarised in Wikipedia:VRS.

Copyright may also be an issue; please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing which may well apply to your current submission text. That page also recommends that the way to convey, as you put it, the basic facts, but without plagiarising the source, is to use multiple sources and bring together relevant material from each. So it does rather come back to using multiple sources.

As an employee of the company, you should also be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Wikipedia has a list of recognised Good Articles about businesspeople at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesspeople. Some of these may be better examples to use for comparison than the two existing articles you mention. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As far as I can tell, your submission has only been declined once, and gave you advice to solve the problem, but you are right - we can't tell at the moment that the subject is in any way notable. As RHaworth might say (although a little bit more tersely than I will), you have a conflict of interest by writing an article about someone who you have a close connection with, and in all honestly the best thing to do is edit something else, and wait until somebody independent decides that Rhines truly is notable enough for an article. Simply put, your submission doesn't have enough references to reliable sources, and the state of any other article isn't really relevant as they may both be terrible examples of articles and nominated for deletion tomorrow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Derek S Roche

Unresolved

I have been notified that my article was declined because it does "not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I would appreciate some explanation regarding what other evidence I might need to provide, because I included five legitimate sources from secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. The article is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Derek_S_Roche Agency44 (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sympathy Vote

I created an article I would like to publish Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sympathy Vote but am unsure of how to do it (I just need help in submitting it for publication.) Thanks much. Glenn Wall Kinfauns67 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The salient point here is that just because you would like something published in Wikipedia does not mean it will be or can be. In order for the submission to be accepted (published) it is necessary to demonstrate the notability of the subject. We establish the notability of a subject by evidencing its coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (see WP:VRS for a fuller explanation). Alternatively, if a subject meets any specific or specialised notability criteria then it may be accepted with fewer sources. As the subject of this submission is a book, please take a look at WP:NBOOK; if the book meets any of the notability criteria defined in that guideline then please add a reliable source to support that fact and resubmit the submission for review. Pol430 talk to me 20:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The salient point here is there is no "multiple" notation regarding sources in the notability explanation regarding articles in Wikipedia.

The exact wording is "reliable sources" which you will note is plural. 'Multiple' means more than one. There is no precise number of sources required before notability is achieved. Some articles can establish the subject's notability with a single source. This does not hold true for your suggested article, as three different reviewers have now inferred. Pol430 talk to me 18:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that your first reviewer admitted he didn't even bother to check the source cited speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinfauns67 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Pass & Design

Why was my article declined?!

If I had specific problems with it, then I can fix those.

The link to the page is below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Access_Pass_%26_Design

AccessPasses (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the reason given was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This is because the article was only supported by one source- the company's own website. See the golden rule, which in a nutshell says that articles need to be supported by multiple (ie more than one) independent, reliable sources. The company website can be a source but it isn't considered to be independent or reliable. We need things like magazine articles or newspaper coverage to show people are talking about the compang. Rankersbo (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here Congressional Contagion - constant re-election of members of Congress

I have no idea how to submit a phrase to your site. It is so convoluted and messed up that I cannot even navigate around in it. Is this meant to put people off from submitting ideas? It sure has put me off to using your site. What gives?

We aren't here to popularise a neologism; try Wiktionary instead. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Voice In Fashion (band)

I Just wanted to confirm that page I am creating The Voice In Fashion (band) is under review? Thank You! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cphipps09/sandbox#Request_review_at_WP:AFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphipps09 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not currently submitted for review - to do so please add "{{subst:submit}}" to the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]