Help desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

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 15

01:26:28, 15 April 2015 review of submission by Whitesquire

Whitesquire (talk · contribs)
- Draft:South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone please tell me how I move this article out of draft status? The reviewer had me add references and then directed me to the Help Desk for the next step. Do I upload it somewhere? Whitesquire (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitesquire: Hi Whitesquire, the article is submitted for review and should be reviewed in the next week or so. The reviewer will let you know once it's been reviewed and what the outcome is! wia (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiisawesome: There must be a quicker way. When I first started this process, there were basically two paths to choose from. Obviously, I chose the longer path. What are the pitfalls of the other path (ie, uploading directly)? Whitesquire (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitesquire: The AfC process is designed to be a method for unregistered users to have their articles approved (since non-registered users can't create articles). It's also a good way to improve an article in a "safe" draft space without worrying about the article being nominated for deletion. Since you are a registered user, you are allowed to create an article right away without using the AfC process. But the AfC process is a good method too, and it tends to provide useful article feedback. Hang tight; it shouldn't be too long of a wait. wia (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiisawesome: I have contributed as an unregistered user for years, but this is my first article, so I appreciate your feedback. Maybe my next article I will try to upload it directly. Can you suggest a good place for me to start learning more of the rules and syntax of Wikipedia? Whitesquire (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitesquire: One of many essays, User:Timtrent/A good article has been declared to be of some use by folk. I hope you will also be one of them. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Thanks for the feedback. How do I move it out of draft status? Do I upload it directly and then somehow delete the draft? Whitesquire (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitesquire: Every editor (after a short qualifying period) has access to the Move function. Wikipedia:Moving a page tells you all. I do suggest, though, that you allow the WP:AFC review process to play itself out. Why? Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I'm going to have a look at your draft with particular attention to referencing. I may be able to accept or push to back to you if I feel I'm competent to do either. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitesquire: Ok, I;ve set the status to be "being reviewed" because there is a technical matter I cannot overcome when I tried to accept the draft. You would not have been able to make this move either. I've left you a comment on the draft to tell you. Give it a few hours. We need admin assistance. Admins are usually pretty quick to sort this stuff out. It's a pretty thankless job for them. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Okay, I appreciate your efforts, and I noticed that same thing about an existing article on the subject. However, I could only find the main article titled "South Carolina Gamecocks", which is about all of their sports teams, not just golf. I bring this to your attention in the hopes of not accidentally having the main article replaced with mine. In fact, I wrote mine to complement the main article and to eventually link to mine from the main article. Whitesquire (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitesquire: of course. Do not worry, all is in hand. We just await help. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Thanks Mr Trent. Whitesquire (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:20:44, 15 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Actionmoviefreak

Actionmoviefreak (talk · contribs)
- User:Actionmoviefreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to add an article on the place where I work. It is (and the title of the article) The Center for Computational Science at the University of Miami. There are no bold claims, just facts about what they do and what equipment they have. There are at least 6 cites. I don't understand why the eVeritas (UM Journal), WorldNews, and Top 500 Supercomputers list site are not enough to verify all the 'claims' (statement of facts) in the article. It's not like any research theories are being proposed. We here (location), we do this (list of topics), we offer this (equipment specs). The Center has been around since 2007. It's part of the UM Research network. If it's not 'important' enough, then okay, but it's verifiable by reliable sources (in my opinion). I feel like I have adequately cited it. Would you please tell me what else I can do (if there is anything)? I want people to know the CCS exists. It's as big a part of UM as anything else already listed there.

Actionmoviefreak (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Actionmoviefreak: Hi! One issue I see with the references is that they are mostly primary sources. It's fine to use primary sources to supplement the core information of an article, but they shouldn't be used as the main references for notability purposes. This is because primary sources are often not independent of the subject-matter at hand. Of the six references in the article, one is a press release and four are published under or by the University of Miami. Only one is independent, but it doesn't say anything substantial about the Center for Computational Science. If I were you, I'd try to find some independent, third-party sources that discuss the CfCC in significant detail. Thanks, wia (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All except one of the references originate from the University itself and the only one that doesn't is merely a listing. You need to find and use a few totally independent sources that specifically discuss the CCS in substantial detail - only then will the subject's notability be established. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:00, 15 April 2015 review of submission by ChickDaniels

ChickDaniels (talk · contribs)
- Draft:A/FX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for everyone who has helped me thus far. This is my first attempt at creating a wiki page. One of the problems I am facing is I have very solid photographic evidence for all the data I am posting, and sometimes I see that it is more accurate data than what printed or online sources show. Specifically, about ten years ago I saved hundreds of photos off from e-bay that prove my data, but of course I cannot upload these photos. So I can appeal to faulty sources, or I can post what I know to be true based on photographic evidence. Could I use as a reference a current e-bay listing? If I did that, the auction will be gone in a week and the photo would last only 3 months or so. Any tips would be appreciated. ChickDaniels (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge you face with personal evidence is that it is considered to be anecdotal, and thus not properly admissible. You point out correctly that eBay sources are not useful. This is doubly the case since any pictures there are often breaches of copyright anyway. Linking to them would be a major issue for us.

WP:TRUTH may infuriate you, but it is a guiding principle. We will always prefer that which is cited to be true over that which is known to be correct. One thing you might find hard to do is to step away from the article for a while, actually a good while, and monitor what happens to it now it has been accepted. Be its father, not its mother. Let others have a go. Yes, revert vandalism, but allow yourself to be pleased when someone else picks up the baton, even, perhaps especially, when they have a different approach from your own. Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:06, 15 April 2015 review of submission by Bandnan

Bandnan (talk · contribs)

My page has been marked for speedy deletion, im not sure exactly what part of the site is considered advertisement. Could i get assistance on how to maybe make it not advertisement. Bandnan (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bandnan: Hi, your page was marked for speedy deletion because it constituted an unambiguous advertisement for RedArcGaming. You are welcome to create drafts here, but they have to adhere to Wikipedia's policies about neutral tone and about refraining from any kind of self-promotion, advertising, marketing or PR. Thanks, wia (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]