Help desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

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.

May 11

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here Rahul.kapoor123

Why my article was declined?..also i wish to change my user name to only Rahul Kapoor how should i do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul.kapoor123 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:CHU and WP:AUTOBIO. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:CliveCrippen/sandbox

American Media Distribution (News coverage firm - Reporter Subcontractor) Sorry, I put an article live without realizing there was the draft section. This is about a company that has existed for some time and they just operate behind the scenes so they don't have write ups and press all over the place. They are quite as many news outlets do not want to admit to using them from what I hear, as it would show that the news outlet does not have enough reporters on payroll and had to outsource.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveCrippen (talk • contribs)

@CliveCrippen:

Declined First, this already exists and has been nominated for deletion. We don't accept a carbon copy submission of an article that already exists, let alone one pending deletion. Secondly, you have no reliable sources. I don't doubt that the company exists (per Bloomberg Businessweek and the Better Business Bureau). The problem is that neither of those sources back up the article's assertions. CNN Money mentions the company, though it's questionable if it's the same entity you want to write about. Most of the Google hits are people asking if this company is a scam and the rest are paid mentions/ unreliable junk. Please stop banging your head against the wall with this and accept that what you want simply can't be had.

It's worth mentioning that a company that works "behind the scenes" probably isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Syneto

I was creating a company profile and it was refused. That's OK, nothing is perfect at first attempt. However the refusal only states that my sources are not reliable. I took great care in linking and citing the sources I mentioned and I've read the help, sources and citing guidelines. Is there any way to find out what references do not comply and why?

I mean I understand that some of my references may not comply to the rules, but unless I understand which ones and why, I will not be able to fix them. I can't just change them randomly, resubmit and wait another month for a yes/no answer.

So, is there any way to get a list with the references that are infringing the rules and the reasons why they do so? Maybe some of them are not even needed for the article, or maybe I can live out from the article the particular part that is considered to be cited by an unreliable source. Maybe I can find a better source.

Here is the article: User:Patkoscsaba/sandbox

PS: This is the first time I write here, and the "Common problems to avoid" is just so confusing that I hope I provided all the information you need. If not, try to be more specific on what to provide in these request. Thanks.

Patkoscsaba (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patkoscsaba. "Reliable sources" are independent sources—not ones from the company's website, their other publications, their press-releases, or company-authored profiles. These are required to establish that it meets our criteria for inclusion. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations very carefully. They have a lot of useful guidance in this respect. Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Filippo_Drago

In reply to Anon126 answer: To Pchemc: Independent sources are sources that are produced by someone not associated with the subject. Because Drago's curriculum vitae is written by Drago himself, it is not independent, even if it is published or certified by someone else. Also, notability generally requires significant coverage, which means that people have written about him in detail. The references other than his CV do not discuss him in detail. A final note: Academic publications written by the subject do not count towards notability, unless these publications have been discussed by others. Anon126.

Thanks to you reply Anon126. However Ulrich Fostermann page has not independent source since in:

http://www.unimedizin-mainz.de/pharmakologie/research/molecular-cardiovascular-pharmacology.html?L=1

there's the CV of Fostermann written by him and published in the website of the university where he's teaching. Is it an independent source? I say not.

About your final note: Academic publications count toward notability since they are cited and discussed in other academic publications. Without citations an academic publication has not a value. All publication reported in the article for creation of Filippo Drago have the highest citations, have a look on http://www.scopus.com/home.url. The contribution of Filippo Drago on neuropsychoendocrinology is relevant.

See in example the wikipedia article of Ronald Duman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Duman That page reports as reference:

1. the web page of the university where Duman works
2. academic publication
3. academic publication

In this article the reference are academic publications and a source that is not independent from the suject since Duman works at the Yale University.

All the reasonings, reported by the reviewers about the reference of article of Filippo Drago (considered not independent), do not make sense to me: since in other pages of scientist there are not independent sources. So again I ask you a better argument on the rejection of the article about Filippo Drago.

Pchemc (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Pchemc[reply]

Hi again, Pchemc. Pointing out that "other stuff exists" is not a good argument to make in this case. Not all articles pass through the articles for creation process, and, of the ones that don't, some have serious issues and would not have been accepted in their current form. Mentioning these articles actually makes a better case for those articles to be deleted, rather than for your article to be accepted. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you want to compare your article with existing articles, I suggest that you look for a good article or a featured article about a similar subject. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Beano (board game)

Could someone at least add something about Beano as a board game / boxed game or whatever appropriate terminology to the disambiguation page for "Beano"?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.251.11 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. The article should be written first (or, in this case, accepted first) before it is included in the disambiguation page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]