Help desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Estakhr Constant (Physics)

article is based on reliable, published source. To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2013.APR.K2.3

You should add that to the draft, not to this page, but firstly I don't think the inventor's own paper would be considered an independent source, and secondly I'm not at all sure poster sessions are subject to peer review. Huon (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even other websites have used this reference link too, for example:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APS..APR.K2003E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.127.230.42 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What goes on in other websites is irrelevant to what happens at Wikipedia - most other websites are not encyclopedias. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, . The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the prestigious Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than 20 science meetings each year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.114.214.38 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, citing multiple, independent, reliable sources that substantiate the article's notability should be simple and quick. If this definition is as important as you claim, why has nobody added it to Wikipedia in the last 12 years? The Avogadro constant article was first created in October 2001. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the folks at WP:WikiProject Physics are quite willing to help new editors and articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Slayer

I was looking for an article on Bob Slayer It seems that he has been deleted in the past for being not notable - it seems that was some years ago - maybe that was when he was a band manager - he is now an award winning comedian (Malcolm Hardee Award) nominations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14631265 wins http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2011/08/27/13873/brandreths_son_most_likely_to_make_a_million He is a trail blazing promoter at the Edinburgh Fringe - The venue he promoted this year became the smallest venue to ever win one of the Edinburgh Comedy Awards (previously the perrier) News here - https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&rlz=1C1LENN_enGB499GB499&biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=nws&q=%22bob+slayer%22&oq=%22bob+slayer%22&gs_l=serp.3...12512.14039.0.14306.2.2.0.0.0.0.45.85.2.2.0....0...1c.1.26.serp..2.0.0.IOGpNu_T33A “Bob Slayer, an eccentric promoter battling to find a new financial model that works for acts.” The Scotsman “You have to admire the endeavours of mavericks like Bob Slayer for living proof that fringe spirit is not yet gone for good…” Huffingdon Post (Late Night Gimp Fight David Moon) "Bob Slayer has created a whole new form of late night show at Bob’s Bookshop by not simply thinking outside the comedy box, but throwing it away. He has grown into a lovely comic and, in his own show, a really great raconteur..." Copstick, The Scotsman “Anti-establishment booze hound Bob Slayer has two shows to perform and a system to smash” London is Funny “Fringe veteran Bob Slayer, the absurdist storytelling performer, promoter and spirit of the fringe…” The Guardian “a force of creative brilliance in the world of comedy” The Comedy Scoop Broken Noeck at Download Festival http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159165/Now-thats-rubbish-stand-act-Comedian-breaks-neck-trying-crowd-surf-WHEELIE-BIN.html 86.146.239.25 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should write a draft via the Article Wizard. Huon (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Scott Morrow Adventure trilogy

Hi,

I am creating a new article and have put in a series of links to various references but there is no showing of the links in the 'References' section on saving the page.

Are the references locked until the page is cleared for publication? Christopher 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

You have added your references as external links. To appear as references, you need to use the <ref> template. See Referencing for beginners for more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You haven't got any correctly formatted references, it looks like you have formatted them as inline external links instead. I have fixed the references and wikilinks in the lead section for you. (BTW the lead doesn't get a section heading.) Another issue is that you have simply listed various reviews with external links. However the "core" of articles about books should actually be built on reviews so please expand the "mentions" into substantial discussion of the reviews. The Author infobox des not belong in this article. There is already an article about Christopher J. Holcroft - it has a number of maintenance tags that you might be able to resolve. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pips Taylor

This keeps getting rejected. Please can someone tell me why with detailed feedback? (80.194.200.114 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As was stated in the latest rejection, your sources do not have any significant coverage of the subject. For instance, the first BBC link here just says "Presenter - Pips Taylor". That's not enough to convey notability - we need articles that are specifically about her, ideally covering several paragraphs. Some of your other references are merely front pages of websites, which are almost never acceptable as a specific reference about a person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it best to take out all these references completely and just have plain text? There hasn't been much written about Pips Taylor in external sources, yet she is a credible TV presenter and I was using those references as proof of her work. If you look at the websites they do list her as presenter so will validate the claims in the wikipedia article. Please advise on what is best to do to get this page created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethin' Else Talent (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get to that, I did a quick search for "Pips Taylor" to suggest some suitable sources. The first thing I found was this link from "Somethin' Else Talent". Please do not use Wikipedia for advertising your clients, as you have a strong conflict of interest and may well be blocked from editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been biased at all in the submission of this. Pips Taylor is a client of Somethin' Else Talent but we are not using her wikipedia listing as anything other than an encyclopedia entry, like everything else on the site. There is nothing on the article to suggest any kind of bias or any mention of our affiliation with her (Somethin' Else Talent (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Your user name and the article's history show a direct correlation between the agency and the article's subject. A conflict of interest can cause embarrassment to editors, as you have now discovered. You will need to follow the guide to appealing blocks. It's true that the article is reasonably well presented, but fundamentally I don't think Taylor is quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article, particularly if she needs to pay someone to promote herself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shahidha Bari

Hello.

I have been asked to add some more biographical info and a link to her latest book. THis has now been done and the changes saved. How do I resubmit?

Regards,

JoeGoud77Joegould77 (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Your article is now in the queue for submission. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Telangana Words

Hello Team,

My submission 'Telangana words' has declined .

Now , i changed the content and i would like to edit my article name . Could you please assist in editing the name ?

Thanks in advance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirish Bathini (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have started a new submission for a new topic. I have moved your submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer. Villages are normally passed as inherently notable (it appears on Google Maps and is real), but I would strongly recommend looking for a news source to describe the 1975 flood. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr.

Hello, my question is for an article I submitted for 2x Grammy Award Winner Dewain Whitmore, Jr.. The article name is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr. I submitted this article about 9 months ago. I also updated/edited the article last week. Can someone please help me in getting this article created? Not sure, why I am having trouble doing so. Thank you in advance. Mikeivy (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Mikeivy (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have never submitted your article for review. I can do this now, but it is likely to be rejected because it does not cite any sources. Have a look at Citing sources and Referencing for beginners for more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pips Taylor

I'm trying to create a page for Pips Taylor and it keeps getting rejected. Please can you provide detailed reasons why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethin' Else Talent (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question on this submission has already been answered further up the page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carestream_Dental

Good morning! I have created an article for Carestream Dental several times, omitting any biased information and adding a number of credible third-party sources, but am having no luck getting it accepted. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Dentstaff (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Dentstaff[reply]

Hello Dentstaff. The last time that you submitted your article, only one of the references mentioned the company "Carestream Dental". This is fine if they support other facts in the article. However, you must be sure that there are several that have extensive information about your main topic. You have added more since, and this is good. One of the new ones, from DentalTown, is an exact copy of another from "HygieneTown"; you should include just one of these, probably the DentalTown one since it's the original. About interviews: be aware that reviewers only look at what the journalist has said when determining notability; remarks by company representatives are not considered independent. So now you have two sources, the Applied Radiology and the Dental Town one, which talk about this company. This is better than one, but please look for more. How about this one? I don't know who these doctors are, but if they are not company representatives, then this is a good source. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I added a few more references and deleted the duplicate copy - hopefully this will help. Dentstaff (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Dentstaff[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C. Stephen Foster

Please help me. I noted the original rejection. I read suggestions. I revised the submission with material written about me by others. I added evidenced of publication of over 700 publications in peer reviewed medical literature, verifiable through pubmed.org. I have read the materials on criteria for notability. Can you please review the submission now and tell me if it is now acceptable and if not, what are the features which make it unacceptable?

Thank you.

Charles Stephen FosterCharlesstephenfoster (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is strongly suggested that you do not create an autobiography on Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are indeed notable, someone will write an article about you eventually. Second, your draft is nothing more than a c.v. masquerading as an article - that is promotion and is not permitted, see WP:PROMOTION. Sorry to be harsh, but it is completely inappropriate as it stands.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Right at Home

Curious to why our Wikipedia article creation was turned down please? What other content could I add for the creation of the article?

Thanks.Bpappasrah (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs independent, third party sources and it is too promotional in tone. Please see WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reach - Association for Children with Upper Limb Deficiency

Please can you explain why validation of the charity through official government sources is not sufficent to get published. A similar charity has an entry on Wikipedia and has less references than Reach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbless_Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by P457452 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising these issues with the existing article Limbless Association. I have added two templates to the article to indicate these problems. The article may be deleted if independent reliable sources cannot be found.

When comparing with other articles, it is best to use Good or Featured articles as examples. You can find a number of Good Articles about charitable and non-profit organisations at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]