Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 September 30

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 30

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banalata

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banalata Why was my article named BANALATA declined in wikipedia? Kindly provide me the tips to improve it, so that i can edit it and resubmit it. Thank you. Mansssrocking (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• The reason given for declining Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banalata is in the pink box at the top. Some tips for improving it are given in the comment immediately below the pink box. For specific questions about why MatthewVanitas declined the submission beyond what he has already said, you can either wait for him to chime in here or, if he doesn't reply in a day or so, you can put a note on his talk page, User talk:MatthewVanitas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• I removed two copyright violations and an "afc comment" that includes links to some pages you need to read before continuing with this submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Media Capture

Hello,

I have submitted this article three times and each time it has been rejected on the grounds that it is not seen as notable, mainly as it is not considered as containing enough reliable, independent sources of reference.

I need to know which references I have used are considered GOOD, i.e. reliable third party sources, and others that are a definite NOT GOOD.

Prompt feedback appreciated.

Thanks, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMWhyte (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Companies House - not significant coverage.
• Wall Street Journal. "IBM Helps..." - press release. Not independent.
• Comms Dealer. "Singh’s social delivery" - might be an acceptable source, but reads rather like a press release, relying very heavily on lengthy quotes from Singh himself.
• Harvard Business Review. "The New Conversation: Taking Social Media from Talk to Action" - presumably does not mention the product?
• Murphy, Barry. "The Next Governance Frontier: Social Media" - does not mention the product.

It doesn't look very promising so far, does it? Would it be better if you explained which of your twenty-three sources you consider to be both independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the product this article submission is about? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If Phil knew what sources were good, he'd use those and those alone! The Daily Telegraph news piece is an excellent source. It is from a national broadsheet newspaper with a good reputation for fact checking and responsible journalism, and its piece is directly about SMC4 and discuss it in some depth. Arthur, less of the snark, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What was unhelpful about my suggestion? I identified, above, five sources (of the twenty-three) which are not good for proving notability of the topic. You have identified one source (of the twenty-three) which is good for proving notability of the topic. Now we just need to work through the others. That's what Phil asked for.

My suggestion was simply that he could speed up that process by narrowing it down to those sources that appear to meet the requirements. Knowing what sources are "good" is one thing, but I am sure he is able to detect whether a source fails to mention the product at all, or whether a source is a press release issued by a company that's in partnership with the producer of the product.

He should probably also declare his Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, if he is the same person as "‎Phil Whyte, Business Solutions Specialist at Integritie UK Ltd". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue was not with what you said (which was within policy and quite reasonable), but in the manner in how you said it. I don't agree that he would know what sources are acceptable and what aren't. The BetaBeat source might be okay, because it's a more critical look at the software. Fundamentally, I share the opinion given elsewhere that it might be too soon to have an article and we should wait until other news outlets follow the Telegraph's lead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Freeryde007/sandbox

Article has been deleted twice. No reason why.

Further, my first identity was deleted. No reason why.

I mean, you want donations and quality volunteers....well, treat people like PEOPLE. I'm reasonably intelligent...I think. Might this help the core wiki crew?

Freeryde007 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This may relate to User:Freeryde007/sandbox, which is the only undeleted thing in this editor's extant contributions resembling an article submission. An administrator might be able to see more. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I notice MatthewVanitas has dropped you a message explaining what the issue was, which is to do with the correct formatting of the <ref> tag. Referencing for beginners and Citing sources can explain the issue in full detail, but for a biography of a living person (which this is), you have to use inline citations using the reference tag. Unfortunately incidents like the Wikipedia biography controversy have meant that inline citations to reliable sources are now mandatory, and hence there is a learning curve just to get an article accepted on Wikipedia, and we do try and make allowances for that here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to other reviewers, is the AFC tool giving incorrect "your submission can be found at" links for any article in Sandbox space? It initially told Freeryde that the article was at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Freeryde007/sandbox (it's actually at User:Freeryde007/sandbox) thus the confusion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article was not deleted, the problem was the blue notification box on your Talk page had the wrong link due to the automated Review program I was using. I have since corrected the link. Note when you do go to User:Freeryde007/sandbox that you cannot see a large part of the article; that part is not deleted, it is simply caught in a coding error, and I have explained in the pink box at the top of your article how to resolve the error so all your draft will be visible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that there is also a draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theodore H. Schwartz.--ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nordic Fight Night

the above article is being held to a ridiculous standard of notability by a reviewer, which no other wiki article in the category "televised boxing series" is held to. the reviewer says "despite how well known something might be (or in the case of TV, how good its ratings are, how significant its subjects are, etc), it is only suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia if it has this coverage." the reviewer is basically claiming that, by wiki standards, if there isn't a philosophical George Will article discussing the significance of this internationally broadcast series of boxing cards to society, then it is not notable. 90% of wiki articles would not meet this standard. at the bottom of the article, the external links to independent worldwide media coverage all mention "Nordic fight night". from the Nordic fight night wiki page, there are inter wiki links to the promotor and boxers, who are "notable" by wiki standards, and the stage they perform on is Nordic fight night. look at this video of the last weigh-in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVUW5CIGc it's a large hall full of worldwide media covering the event, Nordic fight night, not any particular boxer or fight, with a giant Nordic fight night banner behind them. it is virtually impossible NOT to be notable. notability is established. res ipsa loquitur. the article establishes notability and Wikipedia would have no articles by this reviewer's unique standard and subsequently Wikipedia would have no visitors. we are talking about sports media, here. the only articles discussing the concept of Nordic fight night are going to be reposted press releases like this, hardly independent: http://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/01/nordic-fight-night-viasat-agree-long-term-partnership-with-team-sauerland-to-further-boost-boxing-in-scandinavia/ independent media articles about sports tv series that do not discuss the events and participants are few and far between, and you are more likely to find those stories discussing local cat fish tournaments than worldwide sports events. insisting that by wiki standards only those types of stories determine notability is distructive to Wikipedia. the site will have no articles and no visitors by that standard. how many articles about espn Friday night fights that don't discuss the boxers and ONLY talk about the show itself, or hbo boxing after dark, etc, are you going to find if you comb through the thousands of articles covering that series? Monday night football? if you find 4, is that what makes those series notable by wiki standards? you will completely wreck the site playing that game.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christo1234 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The "ridiculous standard" this draft is held to is in fact the general notability guideline. Other problematic articles may exist, but that's not an excuse to create more articles on non-notable subjects. If there was "a large hall full of worldwide media covering the event", why do you claim that the only media coverage consists of reprinted press releases? If it's massive international media coverage, great, surely at least some of that will cover the Nordic Fight Night itself, and you should cite that coverage in the draft. If it's just press releases and none of those media a bother covering the Fight Night itself in any detail, you'll have to accept that the institution simply is not notable. Huon (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)