Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 14 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 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.


February 15

[edit]

05:43:40, 15 February 2015 review of submission by 14.97.57.81

[edit]


14.97.57.81 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) will I gwt any credits fo this[reply]

@14.97.57.81: What do you mean by "credits"? A record of your contributions to the article are stored in the page history. If you created this draft for a class and are asking about whether you get course credit, that question would need to be answered by your teacher or instructor. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:05, 15 February 2015 review of submission by Krystel Espiritu

[edit]


Hi, I created an article on the sandbox and might have duplicated the same on Draft:Hassan's Optician Co.. How can I delete the draft and continue working on my article on the sandbox? Also the article I submitted had references to notable newspaper articles, magazine and blogs regarding the company, all and all facts about the company. I'm pretty new at Wikipedia but I've seen articles like M.H. Alshaya Co. and I'd like to ask for help on how I could possibly write in in neutral POV. Thank you. Krystel Espiritu (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krystel Espiritu:  Done It looks like Draft:Hassan's Optician Co. was deleted per your request at Jamietw's talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:59, 15 February 2015 review of submission by 24.44.44.217

[edit]


24.44.44.217 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@24.44.44.217: Your draft was rejected because it was written like an advertisement. You included phrases like “The Best A Cappella Choir in the U.S.A.!” without attributing that quote to a reliable source and use peacock terms such as "this phenomenal choir" and "This choir's awesome harmonies". Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. If you are connected to this musical group and have a conflict of interest it may be difficult to maintain a neutral point of view, and you might be better off waiting for someone else to write an article about them.
It also appears that many phrases in this article were copied and pasted from https://www.gigsalad.com/lateshowsgospelchoir. It is very important that everything you add to a Wikipedia article be written in your own words, as copying or closely paraphrasing text is a violation of copyright. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:56:08, 15 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ChemKrist

[edit]


Dear Help Desk,

our submission has been declined twice, requesting reliable sources. As a scientist I consider a scientific peer-reviewed journal published by an internationally recognized organization (IUCr - International Union of Crystallography) a very reliable source. The journal articles which are quoted are open access and easy to validate. The newsletter of the IUCr is not peer reviewed but a secondary source and the reputation of the IUCr is such, that in 2014 IUCr and UNESCO were official organisers of the International Year of Crystallography. I could add a link to the chamber of commerce in Nijmegen (The Netherlands) were the European Crystallographic Association is registered, but I don't believe that this source would be helpful to Wikipedia users.

I hope there will be further review of our proposed entry after considered my arguments made above.

Yours sincerely ChemKrist

ChemKrist (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemKrist: The message left by TimTrent wasn't quite accurate. While you do have references to reliable sources, you don't have any references to independent reliable sources since all your sources are IUCr publications. There are two reasons that Wikipedia articles need sources: verifiability and notability. The first, verifiability, is to show that the information in the article is true, and in this case the IUCr documents would be appropriate. However the second reason, notability, needs to show that other people are writing about the topic of the article, and sources that show notability need to be independent of the subject of the article. Since the IUCr is the parent organization of the European Crystallographic Association, it is not independent and cannot be used to show notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:55, 15 February 2015 help regarding world records

[edit]


Clarification about Notability, Independent reliable references and Promotion guideline

Requesting clarification about the following from an experienced Editor/ Reviewer/ Administrator :
1 - World record achievements / holder information is relevant and eligible Encyclopaedia content ?
2 - World records and references used from respective world record registrar - is it Notable and independent reliable reference ?
3 - Mention in the article that the subject is a world record holder is it promotion? - Thanks One life to live (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends on the record and the certifying agency that asserts the record holder's status.
    Fastest 100m dash is clearly notable (though probably notable for other reasons as well). Fastest speedrun of Super Mario Brothers 2 with full game completion is not so notable.
    There's potential for BLP issues and undue promotion of a subject because they're a world record holder. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasteur: Thanks, is there any reference available about which registrar / agency is reliable enough to consider? and how to deal with Organisation articles ? If one record is notable then multiple different world records adds to notability further correct ? if the subject is multiple world record holder and the same is mentioned in the article then is it encyclopaedia content or promotion ? Thanks again for the quick assistanceOne life to live (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samuell1616 Short of a specific case, I'm not going to hypothesize any more. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can always lean back on WP:GNG. If the topic meets this, it is acceptable. If it doesn't, you can try to apply more specific notability criteria to accept. Also remember that you have latitude as a reviewer. You just have to assess based on your experience that the draft is WP:LIKELY to survive WP:AFD. I believe you're still a good reviewer if some of your accepts are eventually deleted. ~KvnG 18:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng I agree to your point, at the same time am trying to get a better understanding on this situation- World record is definetly notable, so if a subject holds multiple world records it adds further to its notability but few treat mentioning world record as promotion and if its multiple world records then the article is full of promotion. This creates confusion between the acceptance of notability or denial of promotion.One life to live (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuell1616: Is your question about Draft:Hradyesh ? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is some guidance on notability and records at WP:ATHLETE. ~KvnG 21:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hroðulf: Yes, the question is open too as the views received so far are similar and contradicting at the same time. One life to live (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuell1616: / One life to live : Could you explain to us why you think the records in your draft are notable, and that the registrars are reliable? I have to admit that my first impression of http://www.worldrecordsindia.com/ is of a press release publisher for search engine optimization. (I didn't look at the other sites.) What is your impression and why? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hroðulf: Plz have a re-look there’s no press release, I strictly avoid any self published sources. What is referenced are independent sources and mention at the respective world record record registrars websites. New world records are created and the details can be easily verified via the independent references. National newspapers , magazines / books / websites are also referred all of which clearly establish notability. Subject is notable and these records adds further encyclopaedic content this is what caught my attention. Regarding worldrecordsindia it is also an independent world record registrar if you visit the website you can check out the various world record attempt events, registered records etc this is what I understood after visiting its website. The same is the case with other world record registrar's. We also have articles about the world record registrar at wiki. Back to the original question. One life to live (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuell1616: / One life to live : There are lots of independent sources about Guinness World Records and IAAF. Do you know where I can find similar for worldrecordsindia ? I think that if a registrar isn't clearly recognised independently, then it is promotion. If it is, then editors should discuss it.
Even better, which is the most recognized source in the article (in your opinion)?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hroðulf: Sure, I just googled and found many independent coverages mentioning about the different registrars some of them are The Hindu, Nagpur Today, DNA, Outlook India,Tribune India, Business Standard,Times of India, Indian Express, The Asian Age, Hindustan Times, IBN live, Hindu, World Record, Limca Book of Records . What I understood after going through individual registrar details is each one have independent governing body including panel of experts to evaluate and finally registering any world records. They follow own set of rules and guidelines. I haven’t found any single registrar in the references offering world records just like that without due diligence . Every registrar guideline is available which gives me no reason to suspect or raise question if the detail can be verified directly. Its just different registrar registering world record events.One life to live (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuell1616: / One life to live : Thanks to your research, I read the [ Limca entry http://limcabookofrecords.in/recordDetail.aspx?rid=1293] again. I really don't understand the entry, which gives the impression that Hradyesh is the world's first luxury handmade car manufacturer, which can't be the case, unless "masterpiece" has some special meaning here. Is this record in the actual Limca book, or only on the website? It still looks unlikely to me that Hradyesh is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, yet. You might want to consider writing about other topics, and come back when Hradyesh has more coverage in the world's press. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hroðulf: That’s correct, its the most interesting part which caught my attention. Assuming thats among the reasons the subject became eligible for world records. Creating masterpiece edition in which every time a new different car is hand built for a customer and will be never created again. None of the ultra luxury companies offer such product (here we are also not talking about semi functional prototypes or limited edition series- Automobile and business information is of my interest too). Enough independent reliable references are cited including newspapers like Hindu , Indian Express , Times of India and the book references etc. Everything is clearly referred and also quoted establishing clear notability supported by independent reliable sources. A stub can be written with just one reference support and here we are discussing to choose which world record or independent reference is notable enough to be notable. I understand as a normal part of guideline WP:CORP also mention primary and self published source may also be used to improve the article - which I personally avoid and is not the case currently. Hence, the initial question on how to decide the notability of notable subject and independent references. Thanks One life to live (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuell1616: / One life to live : You are right that a stub can be written with one ref. But it will often be deleted unless a second one is found. It is a big chore to read all the references in your draft. If I only had two to read, which ones speak most strongly to notability? I think the Financial Express one is OK. By the way, I am not an AFC reviewer any more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hroðulf: Sure, you can read Financial Express,The Hindu and Unique World record. The reason for this question was not primarily AFC review but to evaluate the situation like this where notable subjects and references goes unnoticed and ignored under the tab of past article history and recent reviwer comments. This is why I posted the question at different forum initially but it got moved here. Its great that you are not AFC reviewer your views are important on situation like these. Once you manage to read the article and its independent references in-detail, do post your views / suggestion at the the talk page. And Yes, you asked earlier about Limca Records website and book - The subject has registered different world records twice with Limca world record i.e. in 2014 and 2015 which can be verified at the website and in the Limca book of records and also cited as reference in the draft. Good to interact with you and Appreciate your efforts . Thanks One life to live (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone, this discussion is still open and seeking inputs and suggestions. Thanks One life to live (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:27, 15 February 2015 review of submission by 99.107.70.110

[edit]


99.107.70.110 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure what page you're asking for help on. Could you provide a link? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_February_15&oldid=1102143309"