Help desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xsyon

Resolved

This article was declined with the comment: The sites that are not self published are either trivial mentions or short blurbs that do not meet the in depth coverage

I am stumped as to how many of the references cited could be considered as trivial mentions or short blurbs.

References included:

Reference 2) http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514 This is a full section of mmorpg.com dedicated to the game Xsyon. It includes a description of the game and links to 4 long and descriptive editorial articles regarding Xsyon.

Reference 6) http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514/feature/5013/A-Brave-New-World.html/page/1 This is a full review of the game by a notable source.

Reference 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15) These are short articles, but more than trivial mentions from notable sources and pertain to notable events for the game.

Reference 16)http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/03/02/choose-my-adventure-destination-apocalypse-now/ This is the first of a series of articles written about adventures in Xsyon by a notable source. The full list of articles is here: http://massively.joystiq.com/tag/choose-my-adventure-xsyon/

Reference 17)http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/04/12/community-detective-issue-20-xsyon/ This is another long editorial article describing adventures in the game.

Any advice on what type of sources would be considered non-trivial (if not these listed above) is appreciated.

Thank you Stormbusta (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC) StormBusta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdieu (talk • contribs) [reply]

Anyone? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I don't know why you claim it was declined without comment- there are clear decline reasons in the pink decline boxes, and comments below explaining them. Basically the sources were not considered reliable. Rankersbo (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As above, I did not state the article was declined without comment. I stated that the article was declined with the comment: The sites that are not self published are either trivial mentions or short blurbs that do not meet the in depth coverage. The reliability of the sources was not questioned in the comment. The source sites (mmorpg.com, massively, tentonhammer, mmosite, gamasutra) are well known reputable sites.

As noted above the sources include an entire section of a reputable site and full articles or series of articles regarding the game. I listed some of the sources above.

Can anyone help look at the links / sources provided and advise why these would be considered 'trivial mentions' or reconsider this article for publishing if the sources pass muster? Thank you very much.Stormbusta (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Rankersbo (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reviewed and accepted. Any further discussion about the reliability of sources in this niche subject area rightly belongs at RSN or AfD. Pol430 talk to me 18:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bogdan N. Nikolov

Resolved

Hi, Teahouse!

Thanks for the friendly note and your offering help on my talk page. :)

I read carefully the reasons for Hasteur deleting the page about Nikolov, and my comment is the following:

On the issue of notability, well, Nikolov is certainly not so notable as a politician or an football player the entire country talks about, but he is very notable as an economist. This fact is, in my opinion, clearly evidenced by the many interviews in the media. I can also place more links but (1) they will be in Bulgarian and (2) then we can approach a point where the article may be perceived as excessively long.

What concerns the independent sources, there may be other Bulgarian economists mentioned on one of the official pages of the National Library of Germany, or the University College Cork, but I have no knowledge of any such case other than Nikolov.

In addition to the above, it is worth noting that Hasteur's Google search for "Bogdan N. Nikolov" might not have delivered many results, as the inclusion of an abbreviated middle name is highly uncommon in Bulgaria. But of one tried "Bogdan Nikolov" in Latin letters, or even better in Cyrillic "Богдан Николов", the results will speak for themselves.

I wrote to Hasteur with the request to maybe reconsider his decision. I mean, on his page he puts articles in two categories: "Either they belong, deserve the benefit of the doubt or are so beyond hope that deletion is the best remedy for them." And, it is really discouraging for me to think that "deletion is the best remedy" for my article. I hope you understand. :)

Best, Martin Georgiev (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to recommend here myself, but perhaps someone more familiar with AfC could help with this unresolved query that I've moved from October 12? Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Demiurge1000, I do appreciate your interest in the matter. I even though of changing the name of the article from "Bogdan N. Nikolov" to just "Bogdan Nikolov" so that everyone can see the results of the Google search. But then I thought Wikipedia is really more scientific than that--anyone who wishes to research about Nikolov should figure out how to cut the abbreviated middle name, and will then find things like http://www.presidentsclub.bg/en/read_news.php?nid=50&start=42 and many more. :) Martin Georgiev (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going once, going twice... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two decline templates on the page which have, OK, standard explainations, but they point to guides on notability etc. "see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable". The two links there give much clearer guidance than could be achieved by an off-the-cuff comment by a reviewer. Basically the article has three sources, one of which isn't checkable, one is independent, and one only proves that he has written a book. The last one dosn't count as independent because it is his book. To prove notability you need various reputable media sources talking about this man and his work, perhaps newspapers, perhaps not national newspapers, but more than just blogs. Rankersbo (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll back up Rankersbo here and say that I also don't believe that the sourcing is sufficient in quantity, breadth of coverage, or reliability, to establish the subject's notability. I've marked this resolved now. Pol430 talk to me 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

hello. am trying to find out if Dennis Wheatley wrote the Devil Rides Out in a town called West Bromwich in England, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolbragger (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yupptv

Hi, while i am trying to create a Wiki article in my user work in progress page for Yupptv, i got to know that yupptv and related websites are in spam list. In past some one has tried to add external links to yupptv and its related web portals. I think that is the reason yupptv is in the spam list. Now i want to know is there any way to remove it from the spam list. Please guide me in this and let me know any way to remove it from spam.

Kpintu (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To remove a URL from the blacklist, you need to gather very solid evidence why you think it should be done and present it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kestenberg Movement Profile

I am concerned that I am accidentally submitting a blank submission for my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kestenberg Movement Profile. I first submitted it early in the morning on 10/17, and I just got the comment "We don't accept blank submissions." So I went back to look at the article. After I finish and click on the green "submit when your article is ready for review" button, I get another page with only about 4 lines of text saying "Don't do anything! Just hit the "Save Page" button, and your article will be reviewed!" I tried adding the text of the article to that page, on the theory that maybe the reviewer was just seeing those 4 lines of text, but it won't let me. The only way I can submit the article for review is if I don't do anything on that page. So I don't know where the text of my article is going, but clearly the reviewer can't see it. I am pasting in the article below just FYI, but if you could please let me know how to make sure the reviewer is seeing the actual text, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Miriam584 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Miriam584[reply]

You don't need to paste the article here. Your submission has been successfully queued and will be reviewed at some point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Suzanne LaFleur

Hello,

I am working on an article for submission titled Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Suzanne LaFleur I recently submitted the article for publish, but it was rejected. I have since worked on the article on areas that may have influence the rejection such as verifiable evidence and evidence that the person is of importance and worthy to have an article written about them.

I am asking if there are any weak areas or ones that should be improved in order to be published. I am also running into problems making reference to and citing a source - The International Herald Tribune. The reference is showing up on the reference section on the back end, but does not show up when I save and then view the article.

Any help is appreciated.

Cmemart26 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the changes I made to make that one reference work. You will need to add additional ones. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Loud Interactive

HI,

I submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Loud Interactive about three weeks ago and was wondering if its still in the queue or if I possibly submitted it wrong? Its not my first submission so I believe I did it right.

Many thanks,

Matt Lafmm Lafmm (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be still in the queue as far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Ma

Hi, I'm working on this submission and it's been in review for about 2 weeks now. It took about 3 days for it to be declined so I made the appropriate changes and added a significant amount of sources to the page. I was wondering why it's taking so much longer to be reviewed now when it only took 3 days when I first submitted it? Thank you,

Marissa.anaya (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Marissa[reply]

I would guess that reviewers tend to review faster when a decision is easier to make. So if your earlier submission was very obviously not acceptable as an article, but your revised version is not so very obviously not acceptable, it might lengthen the review time. So it could be a good sign! Maybe. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]