Help desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

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 16

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Smith photographer

Hi I am needing some help to have this article accepted. I believe my main problem is that the information is verifiable online however a number of site require access into the archive - eg newspapers and industry sites and schools. How do I get around this. Also I had followed the 'layout' or 'template' from another photographer already on Wikipedia but as I do it - it seems to be rejected. This photographer is notable within his industry and a very discrete investor group and his pictures sell up to AUD$120,000 each. Most start at around AUD$52,000

I have looked at other submissions and they seem to be accepted but without references or citing - eg wiki page Peter Landy.

I would love some help please - If someone would like to have a go at editing it for me it would be great F2cphotography (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers, including those in dead tree format, are perfectly acceptable as sources. There is a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to help locate particular sources, though Google is getting increasingly better at putting them online. The trouble with older articles like Peter Landy, which was created in 2006, is that rules about what's acceptable for a biography of a living person have increased substantially, and the article would not be accepted on AfC in the state it is today. I've tagged that article as requiring serious attention but I can't send it to Articles for deletion because there are sources that proves he's a notable TV presenter. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query, there appear to be several "Peter Smith (photographer)" on the Internet. Is this page about "Peter G. Smith (photographer)" from Western Australia? [1] There's another Peter Smith in Ann Arbor, Michigan. [2], and of course Peter Smith aerial photographer in New York [3].220 of ^Borg 12:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of biography of Assis Carreiro

Hi just wondering what i have done wrong as my first article was rejected especially as it is my bio so not violating copyright and it is verifiable as it is about me

many thanks suffolkabroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffolkabroad (talk • contribs) 07:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to being a Visiting Senior Fellow in Dance in the School of Arts and Humanities of University Campus Suffolk might be a sufficient claim to notability per our criteria for academics, but that claim must be verifiable. I didn't see any claims of violating copyright, but simply put, you need to supply references to back up any facts in an article. Just because you claim it's true, nobody else on Wikipedia knows that - I think most people can agree that not everything you read on the internet is true! The University Campus Suffolk's own website should be a sufficient reference for that purpose. Have a look at citing sources and referencing for beginners to see how to add it to the submission. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Eye Company

Hello,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Eye Company

I am a new contributor. I am finding everything bewildering, and am completely lost. I drafted a new article. I cannot work out whether it is awaiting approval, or if I have not submitted it properly.

I have no idea what 'sign your post at the end with four tildes (Glasseslover (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))' means. I will attempt do do it correctly.[reply]

Please could you advise me.

Thank you.

glasseslover

(Glasseslover (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi glasseslover. Yes, your article submission is currently submitted for review. (The text at the top which says it is not, is wrong.) Yes, you signed your post correctly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Morris Quinlan Experience

Hello

Following two declined submissions, and valuable advice from Matthew Vanitas, I resubmitted on Sunday 14th October.

Although I've had no further pink boxes appear at the top of my article, the yellow box which originally appeared at the foot of the article has disappeared. I do realise there's a backlog, but please can you just reassure me that my article (3rd submission) is awaiting review, and hasn't got lost in the system?

Thank you

LeoTheDobermann (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely, it seems your article draft was unsubmitted by a bot (a computer program). I suggest you resubmit it. I will mention the problem to the bot's maintainer. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my rejected article due to copyright

4 days ago i wrote an article for Mr Upjit Singh Sachdeva but I received back message that it is copyright.

Please help me how i can write article on Mr. Upjit Singh Sachdeva (User:Cmb2217/UPJIT SINGH SACHDEVA) who is my boss and he has autorised me to wtire on him

what kind of copyright is there in my article. please help. regards Chander Mohan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmb2217 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's copyright policies are a little unusual, but to summarise, most other websites don't have the same copyright polices as we do here (which state all information can be freely reused and even sold to others) - so any obvious copying from a non-compliant site has to be deleted to comply with policy. Your boss should not be asking you to write articles on him, as he has a conflict of interest - unless there is strong evidence that he has had repeated major national news and magazine coverage or other such reliable sources, he cannot have an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cmb2217: If you are sure that your boss has been written about in reliable publications, and you can find these articles about him, you should write the article in your own words, (not using text from any web site or book), with just facts and no praise or opinion. Your boss has put you in a troubling position; I hope that he understands that Wikipedia articles must all be written from a neutral point of view, and may be changed and added to by other editors, and that the result may not be what he was expecting. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search indicates that the article was a rip-off from this page at allafrica.com. I cannot read that page because it requires a subscription but I would judge that copyright belongs to the office of the President of Liberia. Even if the president's office has released it to the public domain or under CC licence, the text would be totally unsuitable for Wikipedia - it was written in an unusual second person style and full of peacock language, eg.: "your demonstrated passion for education earned you a place on the Board of Trustees …". So Chander, your boss may well be notable but you must not insult Wikipedia by a crude copy&paste, you must write a complete article, in your own words and properly referenced - and do not shout his name. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Auroraprat

Hi, I've created this article: Pecce, Luigi Tiziano Peccenini at the top of it I've this notice: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (October 2013) However there are other wikipedia articles linked to it. How do I do to remove this notice? Thanks! AuroraAuroraprat (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and moved, see User talk:Darylgolden#Pecce, Luigi Tiziano Peccenini.--Laun chba ller 12:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Referee Mindset

Dear Reviewer,

I tried to submit an article on my blog that is about mental training for referees. It was rejected this time, and I want to correct it so it would be acceptable.

Can you please let me know what I should change to have it approved?

Thank you, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petair23 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much you can do, I'm afraid. There is an essay, Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day, which isn't quite on-topic here, but it's still relevant. If you've created something, you just have to wait until other people pick up on it and start writing about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. So if I ask someone to write about it in his own words, it's ok? Or, if you didn't know that it's my own website, it would be also accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petair23 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the information still needs to be cited to a reliable source, by which we mean an organisation with a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy. So, as a slightly facetious example (for which I apologise in advance), were you able to convince the editors of The Times, The Guardian and The Independent to repeatedly write about your training over a period of six months, yes your article would then pass. But to ask a friend to host the information on their web site and you cite it here would probably still fail. Wikipedia is very much behind the ball on things, it reports events and ideas that are already well established. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Football related activity of the CCS

I intended to split an article Capital City Service in line with WP:SIZESPLIT and create a new one titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Football related activity of the CCS but I don't think I have created this new article properly in line with Wikipedia:Splitting. In order to carry this out correctly then I am more than happy to have this initial effort deleted completely and I will gladly start again but this time by reading and understanding the guidance fully beforehand, though I will obviously follow any advice given in response to this help request

Apologies for any nuisance caused

Barry rimmer (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article size is large, a large amount of that is references, and I would fully expect that for an article on something like the CCS, because if that article was lacking references, it would be deleted per WP:BLP pretty damn quickly. The prose size is only about 27K, which isn't too big - The Who is right on the edge of acceptability at a little over 50K (again, the actual article size is larger, but in this case because it is thoroughly referenced to reach good article status). I would probably get a consensus on what to fork on the article's talk page first, to be honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting should be done directly in mainspace. Part of the previously large article should not "dissapear" from mainspace to go through AfC at all. See WP:SPLIT. If you feel you need to use AfC then you probably don't have sufficient experience and skill to be splitting articles at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richland Community Center

Hello, Can you please share the reasons that my submission "Richland Community Center" was rejected? Thank you --Lori Ehlis (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Lori Ehlis[reply]

Hi Lori. The reasons are listed in some detail on the page itself - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richland Community Center. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Embrioo.com – The open innovation network

Hello! My submission Wikipedia:talk:Articles for creation/Embrioo.com - The open innovation network was declined because it was considered advertising, so I want to ask something: Embrioo.com is one of the finalists for this year World Creative Business Cup at Copenhagen in November. The first publications about that success were published at local Ministry of Economics (in his role of National host) web site and is written in local language. Link: http://www.creativebusinesscup.com/nationalwinners So I wonder if it's a problem if my sources are in bulgarian language (my article is in english)? And if it's a problem - what should I do? ShadyCent (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian langauge sources are absolutely fine. Although, sometimes foreign language sources can make it more difficult for reviewers to be able easily to check whether the source contains significant coverage of the topic, or to establish the reliability or independence of the source. But that is something we can work on.

Remember you will not only need one source, and also the current submission is far too promotional in wording, even if sources were added. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Assay Depot

Help! The article I submitted via articles for creation has some duplications due to my being a new user. I have tried (for about 1/2 hour) to figure out how to edit it out, but cannot seem to get to the page.

DeeAnn Visk, San Diego science writer 23:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlwv (talk • contribs)