Help desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

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.

September 24

Article lost in the cracks?

I was looking through category:scripting languages and found this article as a member: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Obix programming language. There appears to be a full-fledged article at this point for the same topic at Obix (programming language). I do not know the procedure to flag the first for deletion. --174.29.77.87 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that. It was an old copy that was pasted instead of moved to to the current article. I have flagged it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dhaka School of Economics

Dear wiki advisers, My article has been declined due to lack of "reliable sources". Please help me to improve the article by adding "reliable sources".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dhaka_School_of_Economics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsceit (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schools and universities are normally considered perfectly appropriate topics for Wikipedia. However, individual departments and schools generally have to stand on their own merits (though they can be redirected to the parent article) The problem with your submission is that while the references mentioned Dhaka School of Economics, they only give a brief passing mention to it in a sentence. I would probably create Dhaka School of Economics as a redirect to Academic divisions of University of Dhaka. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ARGO-HYTOS

Hello,

I just wanted to make sure, that I have done eveything right with the submission of my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ARGO-HYTOS

Does that mean, that the article will be checked and then moved into the Wikipedia, if everythings okay?

Thanks a lot for an answer!

Argo2012 (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC) argo2012[reply]

Yes this page is currently submitted and waiting for review.

You may wish to re-read WP:VRS and further improve the submission in order to avoid a rejection, however. You don't have to resubmit it after improving it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jerry Foley (2)

Hello,

I've been trying for months to publish a simple Wikipedia page on the directory Jerry Foley. I keep getting my submission rejected due to "insufficient sources" or "unreliable sources". I don't understand what I am doing wrong as I've used various other published Wikipedia pages as templates with even more substantial/independent sources than those of the other published articles. For examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Roy_King or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_McCarthy-Miller .

If I could get any assistance on how to improve this article so I can finally get it published, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your help.

Rsp267 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles are not good examples to work from. Wikipedia's list of Good Articles has numerous articles about people who work in the TV and film industry. These would be much better examples to work from. Links to these can be found at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama near the end. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians

My article was declined because the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The main source of information is from the organization itself. Are outside resources required to have the submission approved? Raymondelane (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:VRS has more information on this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Dixon, author

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Dixon, author How does one go about providing reference articles to support the creation of a article about a published author?

I have the following for consideration: http://accidentallymars.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/the-pict-a-book-review/ http://podbram.blogspot.com/2007/12/pict.html http://scarecrowsdreams.blogspot.com/2007/11/pict-by-jack-dixon-review.html http://kirstencampbell.blogspot.com/2007/11/book-review-pict-by-jack-dixon.html

Thank you. Jack Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdixon313 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogspot and Wordpress are almost never considered reliable sources, as anyone can set up a Wordpress or Blogspot account and write whatever they like.

The best way to prove the notability of an author is to cite reviews of their books in multiple independent reliable sources, for example newspapers, magazines, or established literary journals.

Some examples of Wikipedia Good Articles about authors can be found near the end of Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Logic of Argumentation

Hi guys

I just submitted an article for the first time. I was not prompted to say where the article should appear and I suspect I have missed out a task. The article is about the logic of argumentation and so it would make sense to add it or link it to the existing section on argumentation. Have I done something wrong, does the decision about where to locate an article come later, or do I need to set up a link by editing the other article or something like that?

PhilipPhilipJudson (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the draft is "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Logic of Argumentation". When it's accepted, the reviewer will move it to "Logic of Argumentation" or more likely "Logic of argumentation" (since Wikipedia does not use title case). Links from related articles will have to be added later, after the draft has been accepted.

My immediate suggestion would be to add an introductory sentence that summarizes what the article is all about; see also WP:LEAD. Huon (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damien Escobar

Hi!

I have never created a page before so I'm unaware of the requirements with regard to references and resubmissions.

Maybe you can help? I've provided links to verifiable news sources (HuffPo, Viva Glam Magazine, etc) and am not sure what exactly I need to give you to have this article published. It was just rejected again today and I spent hours literally on it trying to make sure all information was accounted for. He is a two time EMMY Award winning violinist and I would love to be able to get this post done.

Anything you can do to help would be so greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance,

Anne 24.45.77.238 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your newest-added footnotes weren't appearing because you placed the footnotes after the "reflist" tag; not your fault, simply coding mistake, I've fixed it for you. So now all your footnotes are visible, and the later ones seem somewhat better. Though, again, footnotes should be placed directly after the fact they verify, not just clustered at the bottom, so please distribute your new footnotes to the areas of the article that they WP:Verify, and the "reflist" code at the near-end will auto-list them for you.

I would also get rid of some of your earlier references, like "mixtape" as they don't help your case at all, and catch a reviewer's eye. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Now I get it! The reason your footnotes were weird is because you were typing them like this: and he made a <ref>mixtape</ref>yahoo.news/mixtapesomethingDamien</ref> The stuff that appears in the footnote is the stuff between the "ref"s, so you want this instead:and he made a mixtape.<ref>yahoo.news/mixtapesomethingDamien</ref>.

You were trying to "bracket" key words, and thus making odd footnotes. If you want to link words, use [[wikilinks]] with the double-brackets and it'll show up like this: wikilinks.

First things first, please clean up your footnotes that have that mistaken coding, and we can proceed from there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, are you User:Llcanadyb, the article originator? If so please make sure you're logged-in when posting so we can make sure your messages reach you. If you're not him/her, no worries. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Stevesnee/CPhos

I am writing my first wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevesnee/CPhos

However I can't seem to upload a decent quality molecular structure. Can anybody please explain how to do it using accelrys and any other standard / free software?

I have read the following guide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing

but this seems to suggest that the diagram must created, printed and then scanned back into the computer. Can this be correct?

Any help would be much appreciated, Stevesnee (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the specialists at WP:WikiProject Chemistry, they know how to do stuff like that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Somnath_Sapru

Hello. Can I inquire into the reason my article for creation Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Somnath_Sapru was rejected? Sarakki (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Sarakki[reply]

He is a living person, so we demand explicitly clear sourcing to ensure we do not publish any inaccuracies about him. You state a number of facts about him, but provide no WP:Sourcing whatsoever. You do have one footnote, but you're using it to verify a statement about a newspaper, nothing in it supports your statements about Sapru. To move forward with this draft, you must find a body of news or academic articles that note Sapru (not just in passing, but discuss him) and his career and impact. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've revised the article to include more inline citations, as you suggested. As far as the facts about him personally, the only substantial facts I've included are his date of birth, the places he has worked (the reference in the New York Times verifies a statement about the newspaper but also verifies him as its former editor) and his published books. I've not attempted to add credible references and responses to his books. There is a substantial body of articles that notes Sapru but they are not online. I will include reference without links. Sarakki (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Current NFL Head Coach Super Bowl History

Unresolved

I have made an article here detailing the current NFL head coach Super Bowl win history. I have done most of the work for creating the page, linking everything and citing everything and making tables, but I don't know what else I need to do to it. Is it possible to get someone more experienced then me here on Wikipedia to put the final touches to it or tell me what else needs to be done? And if I submit the page for review for people to determine if it can be published or not, can I state my case as to why it should be an article?Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on the current head coaches sounds like recentism to me. What is so special about the head coaches active on September 24, 2013? If one of them retires tomorrow, will we remove him from that list?

Also, I'm not sure this list is encyclopedic in the first place. Are there third-party soruces that discuss NFL head coaches in terms of their Super Bowl history, or did you just collect these statistics yourself? Huon (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What is so special about the coaches active on 9/24/13?" Just that. They are the current head coach of each respective team. There are only 32 of them. Saying "what if one of them retires tomorrow" makes it sound as if that happens all the time, which is far from true. They don't retire everyday and when they get fired, it generally all happens in the week or so following the season and there is maybe 8 coaches fired at best. So this wouldn't be a list in constant flux that needed updating all the time and would be inaccurate from one day to the next because Coach A or Coach B retired this weekend. Wikipedia is filled with "lists" of different kinds, a lot of which are just information all on separate pages, but the page is made anyways because they all have a common thing. This would be a list that shows what current head coaches have won a Super Bowl. Just about everyone I have spoken to on here and in person thought it was worth making because it is interesting.

Granted there is already a page that lists the current NFL Head Coaches for each team, but it only shows their accomplishments as head coach for that one particular team, not in the past. We were trying to think of a way to add it to that page but it doesn't seem like it would fit to add the fact that Mike Shanahan won 2 Super Bowls with Denver when it is specifically saying what he has done in Washington. So I talked about it with other people on here and came up with two options, either makes "notes" on the Current NFL Head Coach page, or if there was enough material, just make an entire separate page devoted to that information.

And as for the sources, the subject isn't really a debatable. They either were with a team when they won a Super Bowl or they weren't. There are many 3rd party sources that list coaching staff for teams each year, especially Super Bowl winning teams. I added two sources to each statistic, I could add as many as you would like.

And as for the "recentism":

"Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens." Don't know how that applies.

"Articles created on flimsy, transient merits." There is only one SB a year, not everyone wins one, so not really flimsy.

"The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." Again, not really.Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Ryan

I wrote an article about Bruce Ryan and it contains contradictory legends, one which says it is under consideration and the other saying it isn't. I submitted it repeatedly, but no change. How do I know whether it is being considered? ArdenHathaway 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Arden Hathaway

Due to a quirk of coding, the new "Awaiting review" template appears at the bottom of the article at first. Totally understand how it's confusing, I've been pressing for a solution to that too. I brought it to the top for you, and made some other formatting tweaks. That said, your article is not ready as it currently stands. It's always a bad sign when the majority of an article is lists of larger things the subject has been involved with. Without a clearer idea of what makes Ryan notable, it doesn't do much good to mention he helped on Such-and-Such show. Is there more coverage, in news media, industry journals, etc. that discusses Ryan and his career and impact? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]