Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 23
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 22 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 24 > |
| 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. |
September 23
[edit]00:41:38, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Greenzeiger
[edit]- Greenzeiger (talk · contribs)
I'm working on my first article which recently got rejected due to lack of notability. Right now, I've got two sources referenced which if I'm understanding this correctly would be considered secondary sources (The Phoenix Masonry and the Museum of Fezology sites). I was wondering if the reason it was rejected is because these aren't really considered secondary? Alternatively, is the issue that, while they are valid secondary sources, their content isn't specifically focused sufficiently on what makes the organization notable? I'm just trying to understand exactly what I need to supplement them with. I've got a bunch of reasonably substantive newspaper citations I could add, but as I understand it, those would be considered primary. I also have an article about the organization in a printed fraternal encyclopedia, but I guess that is tertiary. Would either of these help or do I need to find more sites/publications like the first two I mentioned?
Greenzeiger (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied with a full comment on the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Timtrent:Thank you for the super helpful response. What I should do to improve the article is becoming more clear to me. A couple follow-up question: is it generally considered a good idea to take the items out of the article which don't have clear secondary source attribution yet out and just start out with a shorter article until secondary sources can be found for all the facts asserted? Also, while the Fez Museum site is indeed an individual hobbyist, the Phoenix Masonry site, while rather amateurish in its web design, is actually an entire organization (see http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/by-laws_of_phoenixmasonry.htm), though I do not think it would pass muster as being notable in and of itself. I also note that it is used as a source in various other articles such as Freemasonry, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, or Imperial Order of Muscovites. In light of this, do you think it could be kept or should I remove it and all material sourced from it? Greenzeiger (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would keep the official site as a reference for simple facts, using WP:PRIMARY as a rationale. The wordpress site needs to go, in my view. The challenge you have is to decide what are facts that are unlikely to be challenged. These may be stated with some confidence almost without need of referencing (referencing is ideal though). Those susceptible to challenge require references.
- I'm not sure how helpful that has been. Others may wish to weigh in here. I have been known to be mistaken!! Fiddle Faddle 17:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Timtrent:Thank you for the super helpful response. What I should do to improve the article is becoming more clear to me. A couple follow-up question: is it generally considered a good idea to take the items out of the article which don't have clear secondary source attribution yet out and just start out with a shorter article until secondary sources can be found for all the facts asserted? Also, while the Fez Museum site is indeed an individual hobbyist, the Phoenix Masonry site, while rather amateurish in its web design, is actually an entire organization (see http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/by-laws_of_phoenixmasonry.htm), though I do not think it would pass muster as being notable in and of itself. I also note that it is used as a source in various other articles such as Freemasonry, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, or Imperial Order of Muscovites. In light of this, do you think it could be kept or should I remove it and all material sourced from it? Greenzeiger (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
10:12:58, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Rwbest
[edit]
Speedy deletion of World primary energy production is not justified. It does not duplicate Energy development. I know this article. It does not list countries producing most of primary energy, divided into fossil, nuclear and renewable. Is it not interesting to see that India is a big energy producer, 36% renewable? Energy development does not provide this fact. Rwbest (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Rwbest (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- This forum will not help you with that issue. You will need to take this up with the person who nominated it for deletion and/or the person who redirected it. Fiddle Faddle 10:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
11:51:27, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Sandeep mash
[edit]- Sandeep mash (talk · contribs)
Hi
We, from the Team of Sandeep Maheshwari have been trying to create the Wikipedia page on the name of Sandeep Maheshwari. We have submitted it nearly 4 times, the last one with proper references and citations. However, it was declined and the reason provided was that it does not show subject's notability. Kindly let us know how to proceed.
Best Regards Team, Sandeep Maheshwari [redacted email address]]
- Please note WP:COI and our policy that one account may have only one editor. I will look at your submission, however. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have nominated this for speedy deletion as a blatant piece of advertising. Please get your own web site for your task. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The article I recently submitted as Articles for Creation has been declined because the references do not adequately support the subject's notability. I am looking for advice and guidance as to how I can improve the referencing and whether it is a case of more references being added or whether it is the quality of the current references that aren't up to standard. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.
195.157.55.217 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
16:15:05, 23 September 2015 review of submission by JRLisk
[edit]
How can I add a title to a citation?
JRLisk (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @JRLisk: I've set the first one for you as an example. Basically in the cite template, between the "|url=whatever" and "|website=whatever" parameters, put a "|title=This is the Title of the Work" parameter. To have any chance of advancing, the draft will need sources independent of Friedhoff. Companies that employ him are not arms-length from him. Worldbruce (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
i am the developer of the page www.ellaridgeview.com and the legal domain owner and the partner of the business.And when i added content from that site to the wikipedia page.My edit was rejected saying it got copyied contents how to resolve this???
Rkvisit (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:Donating copyright material, but recognise that material written for a promotional website will not be suitable for Wikipedia (0.95 probability). Better by far, if the organisation passed WP:CORP to wait for someone else to write about it, or to write totally flat text backed by references.
- We delete apparent copyright violations to protect the copyright owner. While you will find this frustrating you will appreciate it when you consider why we do that. Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Ladakhii (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please ask the question you would like answered. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
18:59:29, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Abudraham
[edit]
I want to completely understand the process that just happened with this article.
First it was rejected for not having references. And then it was rejected because some of the references were violating policy.
Were these the ones that refer to commercial websites like Amazon, AllMusic, YouTube??
How can I improve references? What type of preferences would make a difference?
Abudraham (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not sure how to better this article. Other brewery articles I've researched (ones in California) used the criteria "has it won an award at the Great American Beer Festival?" as criteria for making it notable. Many editors agreed upon those criteria. This business has won several. When I added more references to show notability, it was marked as being like an advertisement. What's a good way to reword the article to make it less "advertise-like" and still present enough information to be notable? Thanks! Eric (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Eric (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @RecknEric: Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies is WP:CORP. The essay WP:Breweries contains advice about notability in the context of breweries, but is not a formal guideline. Neither says "won an award at the Great American Beer Festival" is a criterion for notability. Without seeing the articles and discussions in question I can't comment on the award win as a rule of thumb. If you study examples, be sure to use the best articles Wikipedia has. There are no good articles on individual California breweries, but the following brewery articles have been judged good: Boddingtons Brewery, John Smith's Brewery, Stones brewery, Webster's Brewery, and Worthington Brewery.
- The draft cites the company and the festival as the only sources for the win. If only the award giver and awardee write about an award, Wikipedia won't pay much attention to it. If independent sources cover the win - mainstream news organizations, All About Beer magazine, etc. - then that coverage will help establish that the subject meets WP:CORP.
- There are other problems with the draft's sources. forbes.com/sites is a blog, and yahoo.com/travel is not reliable. Neither should be cited as a source. The three independent sources are all local, and per WP:AUD at least one regional, national, or international source is required. Furthermore none of the three contain very deep coverage of the company - a couple asked-for-comment quotes here, a sentence or two there. Contrast the draft's sources with those of the good brewery articles. A draft needn't cite that many to be approved, but it must have a range of high quality sources at its core. Hope that helps. Worldbruce (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)