Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 December 28
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 27 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 29 > |
| 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. |
December 28
[edit]19:29:10, 28 December 2014 review of submission by Stuff4sale
[edit]- Stuff4sale (talk · contribs)
Stuff4sale (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Stuff4sale:
Declined Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
20:31:03, 28 December 2014 review of submission by Mitzi.humphrey
[edit]I am requesting help in determining and documenting the copyright availability for Wikipedia of the many online photographs of the buildings, founders, and brand name logos which could be used to illustrate my draft article on the history of Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I am requesting help in determining and documenting the copyright availability for Wikipedia of the many online photographs of the buildings, founders, and brand name logos which could be used to illustrate my draft article on the history of Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- The short answer is that you should not add photographs found online to Wikipedia unless you can confirm that they are freely licensed, that is licensed under CC BY-SA. "Non commercial" (NC) licenses are not acceptable. Often the best way to solve the problem is simply to photograph the building or founder yourself with your own camera, and then upload your photograph to Wikimedia Commons. If you have queries about particular licenses of photographs found online, you could try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
- There exist exceptions to this under what we call "fair use". If there is a separate Wikipedia article about a long-dead person (for example the founder of a company), and no freely licensed image of the person is believed to exist, then it is acceptable to upload a non-free photograph of the person to Wikipedia, solely for use in the article about that person (not in the article about the company they founded). Equally, if there is a separate Wikipedia article about a company, then it is acceptable to upload the company's logo to Wikipedia, solely for use at the top of the article about that company. This is because it would not normally make sense for a company to freely license its own logo. There is more detail about this at Wikipedia:LOGO. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
21:33:59, 28 December 2014 review of submission by Marylane53
[edit]- Marylane53 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
Marylane53 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My page on the American Tapestry Alliance was declined because I did not have sufficient independent references. I wanted to ask how many references I should have. I did read the information about notability and the golden rule. I understand that, but I am wondering about the quantity of reliable references that I should have. thanks!
- Hello Mary. In proving the notability of a topic, it is not really a question of how many references you have ... in fact, having too many can cause problems because the reviewer can't see the wood for the trees. More important is the quality of the references ... are they reliable sources, are they independent of any involvement with the topic, and do they have significant coverage of the topic.
- So in this case, the Australian National University piece does not have significant coverage about the American Tapestry Alliance ... it merely discusses a student at the university winning an award from the alliance. Likewise, the Kentwired piece seems to be based on material that is not sufficiently independent of the topic ... it announces that an event will be happening with basic details, but otherwise consists almost entirely of quotes from people involved in the event.
- The Fiberarts Magazine piece is a better source for proving notability ... it talks more about a specific exhibition by the Alliance rather than about the Alliance itself, but if you had a number of such sources then that should be enough to establish notability, much like if several of a fiction author's books are each reviewed in detail in multiple independent reliable sources then we generally consider that sufficient to prove the author's notability even if they say little about the person themselves. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)