Help desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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.

April 14

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/School-based family counseling

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/School-Based Family CounselingI recently had my second Wikipedia draft rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". The reviewer unfortunately did not give any detailed feedback beyond this and I was at a complete loss as to what changes needed to be made. Fortunately, an experienced editor on this Help Desk took the time to give me some detailed feedback that was enormously helpful so that I could move forward and make the necessary changes. Merci beaucoup for maintaining such prompt and detailed responses on this Help Desk! B. Gerrard Gerrardb (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting Chris troutman, the original responder. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrarb: I'm pleased my prior response was helpful. I see you've added a lot of academic sources. It will take me some time to sort through them, but I believe I will accept this submission. We try to provide what help we can as Articles for Creation can be one of the most maddening places in Wikipedia. Expect to hear from me again in the next couple days. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benjamin Hylden

04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.101.181 (talk)

I'm not sure what your question is. If you wish to submit your draft for submission, click the button that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" (though I suggest you improve the references first [go to the introduction to referencing or referencing for beginners for more information]). If you have another question, please ask below by clicking the "[edit]" link by the section heading. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cypress Grove (musician)

Hello, my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cypress Grove has been refused because of notability problems. I read thought I had inserted enough references. Can you give me some help in understanding what I can do, please? Thank you. Athenaathena07 (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenaathena07: The subject doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not sure the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sourcing. Your two BBC citations (the only good reliable sources) don't mention the subject, at all. It may be that the subject simply will never pass muster. It happens. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two BBC references both mention cypress grove as Jeffrey Lee pierce's later year collaborator and the person thanks to whom the Jeffrey Lee pierce sessions project came to be. But I will find some more references if needed. I am sure the official Debbie Harry website is also a good reference though. Athenaathena07 (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenaathena07: I stand corrected. I had searched for Antony P. Chmelik. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what advice can you give me so that I can submit the article again? Because I read the WP:MUSICBIO and it says that the subject must have at least one of the requirements listed. And he does, right? Athenaathena07 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenaathena07:

Accepted Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yakub (actor)

a)Having submitted the article, I tried editing it as it says (in the yellow box): "In the meantime, you can continue to improve this article by pressing the "Edit" tab at the top of the window." However, when I did, I saw this at the end of the article: "Just press the "Save page" button below without changing anything!" Can I edit? b)I have already submitted my draft for review, but at the top it says 'Submit your draft for review'. This sounds silly but I'm unsure if I need to 'submit' every time I open the page. Thanks for any help. Kaayay (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaayay: I, too, am confused about the placement of those templates. Your article has been submitted. To my knowledge, you can still edit the article while it's awaiting review without having to re-submit it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman:Thanks, shall be 'bold'. Kaayay (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Forum Chriesbach

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forum Chriesbach Reviewer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hasteur keeps rejecting my article. Reason: no reliable sources. Forum Chriesbach is a model sustainable building in Europe. It was built by Eawag / Empa and Bob Gysin and Partner architect. So all documents on the project that are available so far are based on the research of the three main stakeholders of the projekt. The only external sources that exist so far are listed (see ref 2, or literature). All the sources are listed on Forum Chriesbach's Webpage as well. This is what Hastour keeps saying is not reliable as going to Eawags website only. Sorry, but this is reality when you want to write about a relatively young model sutainable building. The next problem is English as there is a bit more available in German on the building. Wikipedia German has accepted an article on the building (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Chriesbach). So I don't know what to do to improve on the article (don't have any further external sources) so that it will eventually be accepted by Hasteur. Please help/advise. Eiswasser (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiswasser: First, you're not a new editor so I'm not sure why you think you can make arguments counter to long-held policy. Second, you created the German-language article in 2013 with no reliable sources and for some reason no one there had noticed. I've since tagged the page for needing sources. Your submission is similarly lacking sources and does not meet notability criteria. The good news is, there is no deadline so you are welcome to resubmit in a few years when this model of building has been better documented. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Chris. I really appreciate you getting back to me and your comment. I know the policy very well. However, I decided to write about the Forum Chriesbach as it is one of the greenest buildings of the world (see my literature list) and a model of stustainable architecture. Eawag as a research institute and funded by the Swiss government has no commercial or marketing interest whatsoever. So the article on FC would only be helpful for all interested in sustainability or architectural matters. I know that it is uses by professors in the architectural dept. of ETH Zurich in their lecture. However, I doubt that there will be many more publications on the house in the future (it was built in 2007). The process of designing and constructing such a special office building (zero energy) was very well documented, however mostly in German (that is why it was accepted on Wikipedia there) and of the highest interest. I can only try to get in touch with the professors who use the building in their lectures and get more documentation. What is the minimum of external relieable resources required?Eiswasser (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiswasser: "I know the policy very well" I see no evidence of that. "see my literature list" I'm not doing a lit review. If you want to cite them as sources, go on ahead. "has no commercial or marketing interest whatsoever" That doesn't matter. We require independent sourcing, no exceptions. "mostly in German (that is why it was accepted on Wikipedia there)" The article was never accepted in an AfC process as you created it. The sources on the German-language article are just as suspect. I'm just waiting for other editors there to take notice. Mein Deutsche ist nicht so gut. There isn't an exact hard and fast criteria, but you'll need maybe two or three independent reliable sources (like reportage in the news, academic journals, etc.). If you can provide that I might think the subject is notable and adequately sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your assistance, Chris. In the meantime I've provided independent sources as you suggested (Elevier journal article, case study from Zurich University, etc) also for the German version and resubmitted the articles. I hope the sources are now meeting the policy and you can reconsider their publication.Eiswasser (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiswasser: The bgp link isn't independent, as it's the website of the architect that designed the building. Hasteur has already declined your submission again, saying "still only trivial mentions in English about the building. Now the submission is conflated between the building and the primary occupant of the building.". When you strip away other non-independent sources (Forum Chriesbach - from vision to sustainable reality and New Standards in Sustainable Developments) this article still falls short. I recommend you userfy this submission and work on improving the Eawag parent article instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph James, Producer and Actor

Hi,

I have been waiting for a long time. I have provided 8 links that are from verifiable sources. Other people I have talked to have not had such a difficult time establishing a page. Please let me know why it is taking so long.

Thank You,

Joseph James--98.202.116.125 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephjamesproducer and 98.202.116.125: As was pointed out in January, Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing autobiographies. I've declined your submission since it doesn't meet either our notability guideline for artists or our general notability guideline. I find your request distasteful since you recently received your undeletion request. Your submission hasn't been waiting all that long. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Mitchum

Hello,

I submitted a redirect today but then realized whoever created the original article "Jeffmitchum" is under investigation for sock puppetry. So, I have submitted a new article for Jeff Mitchum and would like the old page deleted. I'm not sure how to do this so reaching out and informing whoever it concerns of my intention to create a legitimate page for Jeff Mitchum.

Thank you, Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudinni (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Claudinni: User:Jeffmitchum is a user page so it won't be a problem. For whatever reason you've been editing that userpage. I've since nominated that page for speedy deletion since it's an unambiguous copy of another website. Your submission is an unambiguous copy, too, so you need to rewrite that information soonest. If you are in any way involved with the subject then I recommend you stop editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O. Gail Poole

Hello - I have had this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O. Gail Poole rejected multiple times for utilization of "non-neutral" language. I have tried to use only facts in the article - though some of the biographical information comes from the artist's daughter's blog - and have addressed specific sentences that were pointed out as needing revision, but with no success. If I could get some advice on how to further refine the article, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks so much for your time.

TerriJor

TerriJor (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TerriJor: I chopped out some of the puffery as well as the unreliable sources and the text drawn from them. If this edit bothers you, you can revert it but this change is required to have the article accepted. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David House Agency

I'm working on editing this page and having trouble understanding what the editors comments mean, specifically "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" I am having a hard time understanding how multiple references in high profile court cases on multiple respectable international news sites (NY Times, CNN) does not establish notability. I have read the wikipedia guide on notability but I feel the sources do establish it. Can you clarify? Maria569 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktr101: Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that they are brief mentions of the agency, and don't really go into depth about the company. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Kalo Shop, Chicago, IL (1900-1970)

I have photos I can upload for the "The Kalo Shop" article that are off-copyright (pre-1923 and photos of objects that I own and that I took the photos of to assist with the presentation of the article). The Kalo Shop was a major hand wrought jewelry and silver company known throughout the world and it is not on Wiki currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcyevon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Darcyevon: To upload images, see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]