Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:29, 10 June 2012

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

Top of page
Table of Contents
Today's posts
Bottom of page

June 4

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chicago White Metal Casting Inc

OTRS received permission related to Chicago White Metal Casting Inc. I was informed that the page was: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chicago White Metal Casting Inc, but I don't see any such page. Does anyone remember working on this? If it was deleted for copyright reasons, it can be restored, and I'll add the permission.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chicago White Metal Casting Inc., which was declined for reasons unrelated to copyright. Huon (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

First, thank you Houn and others for helping get my article into acceptable form. Now that my article has been accepted I some some more questions:

• My article does not appear when I google H. J. High Construction. Is this perhaps an SEO problem with H. J. High?

• I believe I pasted {{Infobox company}} into my article listing the company name/industry/year founded and so forth. However, I don't see this information in my article. Do I need to re-enter this information?

• I believe I included an external link to H. J. High's website, but I don't see that in my article. Do I need to re-enter this information?

Again, thanks for your help in guiding me through the process of getting this article posted.

Dan McD

Firstly, I have no idea why Google does not show the article; usually it displays Wikipedia articles very prominently. Maybe it simply needs more time.

I have no idea what happened to the infobox and the external link; maybe they were among the edits that didn't get saved? The entirety of your edits to the article after May 25 is this; it does not show those you asked about.

Finally, this is the wrong venue for general editing questions once the article has been accepted. Please use the general help desk or ask me at my talk page. Huon (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tracey Corderoy

Regarding the submission for Articles for creation/Tracey Corderoy

Thank you for your comments.

A previous reviewer thought that...

"The book prize from Hillingdon might be helpful in support of a claim to notability but it is not enough on its own. What is needed here is evidence from independent reviews in national magazines, etc"

This has now been supplemented by the recent review #5 "Set to become a new childrens classic", Lancashire Evening Post, you mentioned by the reviewer.

When this is combined with the recent news that Corderoy has been shortlisted again for the Hillingdon Picture book prize (a non commercial independent prize) and now the #8 2012 Independent Booksellers Week Award prize, I would have thought the requirement requested has been met?

Do you accept reviews from independent book review bloggers?

Regards

Mcorderoy (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent book review bloggers ususally do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require of reliable sources. They probably do not come with any editorial oversight. Many other sources in the draft, except the Lancashire Evening Post, are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. This includes the Independent Booksellers Week and Hillingdon reporting on their own awards. My advice would be to find secondary coverage of those awards. Huon (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Which parts of my article are unverifiable? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Stalin Kapembe (Stalin Kay)

Can you kindly point out which parts of my submission (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Stalin Kapembe (Stalin Kay)) are unverifiable so I can target those parts.

Best

Samsmartin81 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "[he] would later go on to sign a plethora of talented artists to the label", or "Stalin also recorded The Dogg's break-out chart-topping and Sanlam Namibia Awards' winning single, "Jesus Otati" a fact least known to many", or "Artists moulded by Stalin went on to win accolades at the very 1st Sanlam Namibia Music Awards in 2003 and subsequently in later years"? Furthermore, many of your current references are primary sources or not reliable. In particular, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. I also have doubts about AfricasGateway, which seems to accept news submissions by users. Huon (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Air Safaris (NZ)

Hi I have been working on my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Air Safaris (NZ). I have got 12 refs at the bottom but none are notable from the review completed, even though most are from secondary sources how do I make them more notable or should I find better ones. The list is at the bottom of the page if anyone has any suggestions on how I can improve the article that would be very appreciated.CHCBOY (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are not secondary or not reliable. A travel agency trying to sell Air Safaris tours is not a secondary source. User-submitted reviews such as those at tripadvisor.com.au lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and are not considered reliable. The aerodrome source does not even mention Air Safaris. The best reference is the Flight International article; if you could find more sources in newspapers or the like, that would go a long way towards establishing the company's notability. Of course you should not just provide such sources, but the article should be based on them. If there's too little coverage for that, the company probably isn't notable. Huon (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon, actually the ref for the aerodrome is there for the airport at Lake Tekapo. Now I found an additional article from the pacific wings magazine used for ref (14) and an air crash report for their accident in 1998(12). There is the flight global one too. Would that be enough for it to be sent for a review again? CHCBOY (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Wings article looks very good, but the crash report seems to be user-submitted content and comes with a warning that the publisher does not guarantee the report's correctness - the exact opposite of a reliable source. The NTSB report isn't really helpful; maybe some news coverage of the accident can be found? Anyway, as I said, the article should be based on reliable sources. The Pacific Wings and Flight International articles, especially the former, might be sufficient for that, but major parts of the article would have to be rewritten to bring it in line what the secondary sources say. As an aside, the Pacific Wings article is called "part 2" - if "part 1" offers as much coverage of Air Safaris, it would also be a very useful source, but I could not find it. Huon (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thamks again Huon, seem to be getting there slowly will work on it CHCBOY (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction - How does Infobox company template work?

I want to create an infobox template in my article similar to the one that appears in the Haskell Company article. I followed the instructions for Infobox company: "To use this template in an article, copy the template below then paste the template into an article." I did this, but my template does not show up in my article. What did I do wrong and how can I correct it?

Also ... is this the right place to ask questions about an article after it has been accepted? I clicked on my "user talk page" and this is where I ended up. Am I in the right place—and if not, how do I get the place I need to be to ask post-acceptance questions?

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The infobox has been fixed by User:Huon and is now showing on your article. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I am trying to get to my talk page to ask a question about an article I have written. I must've done something wrong on my attempt to get to this page, because I received this response:

It appears that this template ({{Help me}}) is being used on a non-user talk page. Please remove this instance of the template. This template is meant for use on talk pages. Your user talk page can be found here. If you added this template, please remove this template and re-add it on your user talk page. If you did not add this template, please remove it from this page.

However, when I click on the "user talk page" link I end up here—and this apparently is not a user talk page.

Querstions: • How do I get to my user talk page? • Once there, how and where do I ask my question?

Also, the previous error message asks me to "please remove this template and re-add it on your user talk page? How do I do this?

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage can be found by clicking the My talk link at the top right of the screen, inbetween your username & your preferences. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question regarding the submission of my page Distant Village for approval

I was wondering if someone could guide me through why my page Distant Village was not approved? Are there some simple steps that I can do to clean up the list of references? This page should be historical and factual as they are the first Fair Trade, Environmentally friendly packaging company. Let me know, thanks

Sustainablescottie (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Sustainablecottie[reply]

With the exception of the ABC news story, all your references are to primary sources. Notability by Wikipedia's standards requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and a single piece of local news is usually not considered "significant". In order to establish the company's notability, you should provide additional secondary sources. Huon (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i want to make the page of MR.GHAYYUR AKHTAR

MR.GHAYYUR AKHTAR is an actor director writter producer and radio stage artist.He is pakistani actor. I want to make the page of MR.GHAYYUR AKHTAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.68.221 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the Article Wizard, and remember that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (such as newspaper articles) is necessary to establish Akhtar's notability. Huon (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

recent page submission was declined

I recently submitted a page on the rock group Kicking Daisies Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kicking Daisies. It was declined with reasons given including the lack of credible sources and promotional language. Now, I'm writing the page as a freelance writer, and I've already disclosed that my client is the Kicking Daisies management. They would like to know why pages on other musical groups and entities with less exposure and mainstream documentation have been included in Wikipedia -- Care Bears on Fire and Rebecca Black, to name just two. The Kicking Daisies management team is "determined" (in their manager's words) to have a successful page. I'll tweak the language as needed, but I am wondering what else needs to be done to get this page to fly? Thanks. Cjmckinney (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other bands with less exposure: Other stuff exists, but that's no reason to create more articles on non-notable bands. To establish notability you'd have to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the article should be based on those sources. For example, the claim that Justin Bieber is "associated" with Kicking Daisies definitely needs a source to back it up. The sections about current and past members are entirely unreferenced. The links to Radio Disney and the New York Times for the Disney award and its aftermath are broken (and Radio Disney would be a primary source anyway), the Digital Hollywood source doesn't even mention Kicking Daisies, and so on. I don't see which of the criteria of WP:MUSIC they are supposed to satisfy, either. As an aside, I believe it's extremely uncommon to add entire sections on the management that are longer than the sections on the band members themselves. Huon (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of the management being "determined" to have an article on WP, please see WP:OWN and WP:COI. Roger (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emiliano Reyes

Dear WikiProject,

I hope all is well! I just wanted to know if I need to do anything more to help with the review process. Do you send an email confirmation or should I just log back on.

many thanks!

Your draft is currently awaiting review, but it does not use inline citations or footnotes. Please add footnotes so readers can easily verify which reference supports which statement.

I have heard rumors that we indeed send an email confirmation, but since I've never submitted a draft for review myself, I don't guarantee for that (I always found those rumors hard to believe because many new users will not have emails enabled, making that a less-than-reliable way of notifying users). I'd suggest logging back on periodically - you'll definitely be notified on your talk page, and there will be a brigth orange hatnote informing you of the new talk page message. Huon (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will get a confirmation email when your article is accepted or rejected for the first time. Typically, a reviewer will post on your User Talk page when they have completed their review and that is the notification that you will receive. (At least that's how it worked for me!) In my case, the reviewers only posted on my User Talk page for the initial rejection and final acceptance. For the other revisions that were rejected as I refined my article I had to check the website, but the reviewers are pretty efficient and will often search out for your revision to see if you addressed the issues they noted. It would be a good idea to check every day or every other day just to be safe. I hope this helps! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of NYU Graduate Acting Program Alumni

Hi,

(I submitted a previous question but I wasn't logged in so now I can't find the answer...)

I am wondering about the question of notability for this page. It seems to me that the people listed are equally notable as those on the many other "List of Alumni" pages... see for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_St_Peter%27s_College,_Auckland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_the_University_of_Chile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Michigan_arts_alumni

etc.

These pages include internal links to Wikipedia pages of the people involved, but very few external links. Do I have too many? How can I reformat this page to pass the notability criterion?

Thanks,

Jamesborda (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)James[reply]

The reply is the last one for May 31, and it basically said that since we already have a list of New York University alumni, we do not need a separate list for NYU Graduate Acting Program Alumni. The Acting Program alumni should just be added to the main NYU alumni list. Huon (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony J. Batten

Thank you for reviewing the article Anthony J. Batten.

Review stated: the information should be verifiable, with clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

This artist is most worthy of inclusion and 5 references were given. The artist Rudolf Stussi only has 1 reference, and is included on Wikipedia.

Please provide help and advice. Artisforme (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your references are primary sources, in particular Batten's own exhibition catalogues. Those cannot establish a subject's notability; we need secondary sources for that. According to Google Books, Aquarelle! is also a primary source. That leaves us with only the America West airline magazine, and I'm not sure an in-flight magazine really comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require of a reliable source. On the other hand, not a single one of your references supported Batten's Golden Jubilee Medal. To show that Batten is notable enough to be included, please present more reliable secondary sources, for example a news report about his medal, and make sure that the article text is actually supported by those references.

Regarding other articles with insufficient references: Other bad articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Huon (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors,

under the "Governor General of Canada" there is a section titled "its an honour" and if you go to the Golden Jubilee Medal and recipients, Anthony Batten's name comes up: "Proof" direct from Canada's "White House". Under "donors" of art on the site for the "National Gallery of Canada' there is a section on donors of work and Anthony Batten's name come up there in the alphabetical listing. He is listed under the "A.J. Casson Award" a Wikipedia file as the 1996 winner. Also listed under the "Canadian Society of Painters in Water Colour", again a Wikipedia site, as a past president.

Anthony Batten is listed under the "Royal Collection Project" yet again a Wikipedia site as one of the artists in the 1985 folio of sixty works. Also listed under the data base of the "Archives of the Government of Ontario" as having a work in the Governments Art Collection. Last, but not least, he is listed in the data base of the "Ontario Society of Artists" as being an elected member (as of January 1- 2012).

Please tell me how these are not verifiable. A bad article? I disagree totally.

I will try to provide another reliable secondary source (though I think there are enough), and will link internally to the Wikipedia sites once the article is approved. Please approve. Thank you.

Artisforme (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should add those references to the article draft, not just present them here. But the Governor General's information about Batten's Golden Jubilee Medal is minimalistic, and I don't think the entity giving an award is a secondary source on that award anyway. It may serve to verify the award, but it is not what we require to establish Batten's notability. The same goes for the alphabetical donor list at the National Gallery and the entry in the Ontario Art Collection - that is not significant coverage. I couldn't find a reliable source about Batten's contributions to the Royal Collection Project; Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. I didn't look for sources on the A.J. Casson Award or his presidency of the CSPWC, but again we'd need a reliable secondary source, not a Wikipedia article. Finally, the Ontario Society of Artists is once again a primary source on its own members. What I meant by "bad" articles was "insufficiently supported by reliable secondary sources". This article is insufficiently supported, and the new sources you point out don't really change that. I become ever more convinced that good sources on Batten should exist - news articles, for example - but we'd have to actually find them. The draft lists the Canadian Who's Who in the bibliography; that would probably be a reliable secondary source, but currently it's not used as a reference. If some of the other bibliography entries are about Batten, not by Batten, they might also help, depending on what (and how much) they have to say about him. Huon (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus)

Hi,

For my article to be accepted I have been asked the following: 'Please cite your sources so the information can be verified - you can find what information you need to include at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include'

In 'References' at the bottom of my article I have listed all the sources so that the history of this castle can indeed be verified. If I have done this insufficiently, do please outline what more I need to do and I will certainly attend to it.

Best regards,

CorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cornelius WilliamCorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you should use real footnotes, but that's just a matter of editing. Secondly, your references are too short of information to be of much help. For example, what is "I.M. no. 78"? I just tried a Google search and got results ranging from The Supreme Court from Taft to Burger via Lloyd's register of shipping and The language of the Papago of Arizona to Studies on the history of medieval Sicily and South Italy, but nothing seemed relevant to an Irish castle. Is "Weir p66" Alison Weir, and if so, which of her books would I have to look at? Our readers shouldn't have to guess like that. Without both author and title, for journals also the full title of the journal and not just the initals (maybe the initials might do for the NEJM or the WSJ, but not for much less well-known publications), identifying the work will be somewhere between exceedingly difficult and impossible. Huon (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ziegler & Brown

Hi there,

Can you please provide me with some guidance around how to get the below article approved?

Is the primary problem that all of the information in the Wikipedia entry is not available at the reference provided (as in, the Wikipedia entry has additional information that cannot be found at the site)?

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ziegler_%26_Brown

Any help you can give me would be great.

Thanks!110.174.10.223 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the article has information that cannot be found in the reference is indeed a problem. But a more basic problem is that the only reference is a primary source (Ziegler & Brown's own website), and we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to show that the company is notable enough for an article. Furthermore, writing articles about future products is strongly discouraged; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For these reasons I don't think Ziegler & Brown is an appropriate topic for an article - at least, not yet. If there are newspaper articles or independet reviews of these products, we can write an article based on those sources. Huon (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lucien Wang

We received the following feedback:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

We are trying to revise, but we face some difficulties. While we incorporate some secondary material, most of the important material on Wang's life consists of primary sources, which we have accessed and referenced. The sources can be verified by a visit to the archive. Could you confirm that you do not want primary sources to be cited on Wikipedia? If this is the case, then we'll mount the article elsewhere, and give a reference to it in the Wkipedia article (effectively making it a secondary source), but this seems a strange way of proceeding.

We honesty think that the page is written in a neutral manner and does not contain opinions. Perhaps an example could be given of a phrase or paragraph which is not written in a neutral manner or which contains unsubstantiated opinions.

Thanks!

Rendun62 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed content should not be based on primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. Please note that just hosting the material someplace else will not turn a primary source, such as a letter by or to Wang, into a secondary source. As an example, I'd point to the paragraph on Michael Liroudia. If no secondary source has commented on their relationship, this paragraph should be removed in its entirety. The same holds for the paragraph on teachers, whose only secondary source does not mention Wang at all. There seem to be various newspaper articles on Wang, enough to establish notability: Those are the sources the article's content should be based on. Huon (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adobe CreatePDF

I Create article about Adobe CreatePDF Match the Acrobat.com So I create this article. Ferry Roland 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Ferry Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs)

You will need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish this product's notability. Is there anything else you need help with? Huon (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom McEwen (sports writer)

I made major changes to this article on Saturday and resubmitted. I made changes according to each problem cited in the rejection notice It still has the same comments to change what I have changed already and it says there are 638 articles waiting ahead of it... same as it did when I first submitted it. The rejection notice said I could make changes and resubmit, but I've gotten no notice that it's been re-reviewed. Please let me know what's wrong this time Elissa McEwen (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the submission, just a huge backlog (those 600+ articles are not waiting ahead of yours; that's the total number of drafts currently submitted for review). I believe your draft is being reviewed right now. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. France3470 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Photosensitive Anodized Aluminum

Hi. I am working a new article and I have an image that is totally legal to use that I created, but I can't seem to upload it - pls help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.wainer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload images via Special:Upload, or via the File Upload Wizard. More detailed help on uploading images is available. Your account must be four days old and you must have made at least ten edits, but you satisfy these preconditions.

If the image comes with a free license, you may instead upload it to Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Huon (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JEWELERY

WHAT HAND SHOULD MALE WEAR WEDDING BAND AFTER SPOUSE DIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.197.110 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tandoor Chef

Please advise - I am working to get this company profile added to Wikipedia and am requesting your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAN1979 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references are rather weak for this company: Some are not reliable (for example the "Cooking with Coley" blog), some are primary sources (such as the press release), none provide significant coverage of the company. The very first one even condradicts the article by stating that Tandoor Chef is not a manufacturer at all but a brand of Deep Foods. Conversely, the only section which is sufficiently referenced at all is the one about the products - the "history", the "community", and the "foundation" have no reliable secondary sources, and they also sound like advertising - phrases such as "dreaming up new entrées for all to enjoy" are hardly encyclopedic. In summary, I don't think the brand's notability has been established, and even if that problem was addressed by better references, the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch. As an aside, I don't see why an article on an NJ-based food manufacturer should contain an entire section on a barely related Indian charity. The charity may or may not be notable on its own, but unless it's a subsidiary of the food company (and not just supported by it), the details about the charity's work in Gujarat do not belong in the company article. Huon (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rafael Suárez

My article was declined for the second time on the basis of lack of reliable sources. Most part of it was obtained directly by me from interviewing the family of Mr. Suárez and former members of the Quinteto Contrapunto (which Suárez conducted). I have given conferences at a university level about Suárez life and participated in Venezuela's National Culture Council publication of Suárez's works.

How can I record this as reliable sources and get the article accepted? There is very little information available in English about Mr. suárez, while there are articles iabout Quinteto Comtrapunto and Mr. suárez already available in the Spanish version of Wikipedia.

Thanks, Oaquique (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Oswaldo Aquique[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not publish works of original research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge that has already been vetted and published by reliable sources, rather than to vet and publish novel information by itself. This is how we gain the trust of our readers in spite of our mostly non-expert authorship - instead of asking them to trust that we do our jobs correctly, we ask that anyone who doubts us check the cited sources themselves, and see if we got it right. It has been repeatedly determined in community discussions that even if a Wikipedia author is himself an expert in a field, we will still follow the same rules.

If reliable secondary sources exist on Mr. Suarez, or if you can get one published yourself, then we might be able to have a Wikipedia article on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arne Birkenstock

User Nouniquenames just deleted the article on Arne Birkenstock. Is the lack of sources the only problem? Or is there a problem with the relevance of the person? Most sources I could add are from Germany and in German language. Would I add them at the end as links?

Thanks a lot for your help! pelicula1000 Pelicula1000 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article was that that none of the sources provided are considered reliable independent sources. Aside from IMDB (which is not considered to demonstrate notability), you only linked to official websites to works he has been in. We need sources that are independent of himself and his associates. The deletion was performed because it is Wikipedia policy that any content on a living person with inadequate references is deleted, although it is still visible under the "history" tab of the submission. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Someguy! I could add links to relevant entries at websites such as the German Film Academy, the Documentary Association of Germany, the German Film Awards and the Crew United website for example. Also to festivals where Mr. Birkenstocks films have been running. Would that help, even though these sites are mainly in German language? pelicula1000 Pelicula1000 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German sources are fine (the relevant guideline is WP:NOTENG), but these all sound like primary sources to me: I expect he's a member of the German Film Academy and of the Documentary Association, and the German Film Awards website would also not be independent coverage of him winning the award. Are there newspaper articles about the award, or reviews of his films? Those would be truly independent, and they could be in German, too. Huon (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WARWICK EVANS DESIGNER

New to all this. I have made four requests for clarification. My article about the Cambridge industrial designer has been knocked back due to lack of references. But, it has over a dozen references. I have asked for clarification on this point, but answer comes there none. As this has been going on for two moths now is there anyone out there who could reply with some guidance please? Not getting any replies is not good. Thank you. Jhoward2003 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could link directly to any sources that are available online, rather than simply linking to the publisher's website. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking directly will be difficult for 1980s articles, and it's not strictly necessary. But a link to the publisher's website is not helpful. Also, you should add footnotes so our readers will know which reference supports which part of the article. Huon (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Jonathan Waxman (physician)

My article on Jonathan Waxman has now been approved, which is great. I do want to improve the article over time but it's only meant to be a brief piece for now. To that end I really need to get rid of the weasel words banner at the top as a priority. I'm not sure what the review process is for this - it looks like I could just remove the banner while editing the article, but surely that would get the article removed? It would be very helpful if you could specifically point me to the vague phrasing that is causing the concern and let me know how the review process works for getting the article regraded etc. Many thanks. Francesca w (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once an article is published you should stop using this help desk. The correct (general) Help desk is at WP:Helpdesk. I have removed a few obvious weasel words and left a message about the matter on the article's talk page - Talk:Jonathan Waxman (physician). Roger (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lyrics culd be useful to make the page somewhat more intresting

cld ul plz add lyrics of songs at ur page i rly am dying to c dat in ur site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.24.130 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable secondary source discusses the lyrics, neither should we. Besides, there might be copyright problems. It's not a question about Articles for creation, anyway. Huon (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

science/parts of the heart

how many parts does the heart have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.82.153 (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chiko Mendez

In the article I'm working on I do have a newspaper that published an article about my subject. I is in spanish, how can I use that as a reliable source? In it they reference a lot of the things I mentioned in my article. My main source is the actual person in question here, are any of my other sources usable as verifiable? Thanks for taking the time to review.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chiko Mendez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chiko_Mendez

Luis

Windsr (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I suggest you use real footnotes for your references, but that's just a style issue. A newspaper in Spanish is indeed a reliable secondary source and can be used as such. English sources are preferable (because it's the language our readers will be most comfortable with, obviously), but not required, per WP:NOTENG. I believe it's the Nuevo Diario article linked in your draft? I'd suggest adding publication information to the bare link: Author and date, for example.

Unfortunately none of your other sources are reliable secondary sources. IMDb is not considered reliable, and all others are primary sources. As to "the person in question" as a source, that would be considered original research, and it's not verifiable for those of us who don't happen to know Mendez. There might also be a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scarlett Baron

I have revised a page adding two internet sources - one that of a major university and one that of a major publishing house. The article also contains, under "Publications", a number of mainstream published works. If this is not sufficient I'd greatly appreciate guidance. Many thanks. Jpmarchant (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those internet sources are not reliable secondary sources: The university's website on its own staff is a primary source, and so is the publisher's page about its own book. Amazon does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered reliable. Similarly, Baron's own publications are also primary sources. What would be required are sources independent of Baron discussing her or her work - independent reviews of her articles, scholars discussing her work, maybe news articles. Half the "works" section discusses her not-yet-published book - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not discuss future events unless there are reliable secondary sources to base such discussion on. I also didn't see which of the notability criteria for academics Baron is supposed to satisfy - to me she seems not (yet) notable enough for her own article. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scottish Council on Archives

Hi,

My submission for a wiki entry dedicated to the Scottish Council on Archives was rejected due to the following: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources

Please advise what more I can do to adequately reference the information. I would like to draw your attention to the entry for an organisation called Museums Galleries Scotland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museums_Galleries_Scotland - this organisation is the same type of organisation and uses its website as a method of referencing. Why can I not use the Scpttosh Council on Archives' website in the the same way?

Another example of a very similar organisation is the Archives and Records Association - they have a wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_and_Records_Association) that uses its own website as a means of reference in the same way I attempted to do.

Any help and advice gratefully received.

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottisharchives (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles with insufficient sources exist, but that's no reason to create more of them. If there is no significant coverage of this organization in reliable secondary sources, it is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There might be some news coverage, though: Google News produced a few hits that might be promising. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screen dimensions of a 15.6 screen laptop

You have a very thorough screen dimensions page defining verticle and horizontal dimensions of screens in many ratios. What it does not tell is how to pick the correct ratio to get to the correct height and width. Because the target screen is not at hand to measure, the ratio is also unknown. If it were at hand there would be no need to look it up on Wikipedia. 71.34.224.100 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)D.K.Campbell[reply]

You want know the height to width ratio of a particular monitor? Try the manufacturer's website or maybe the reference desk; this certainly is not a question about the Articles for creation process. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plastic commodities

WHAT ARE THE PLASTIC COMMODITIES WHICH ARE USED IN A DAILY BASIS IN OIL REFINARIES OF ASSAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuanurag (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mishari bin Saud

Since the mid-April, I have been waiting your decision over the article, Mishari bin Saud. However, today another user (Ism Schism) published this article. It is very strange. If the first article should have been reviewed, how is it possible to publish this article without any review process? Can someone answer me, thanksEgeymi (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the article need to be reviewed? Why not just create it as you are autoconfirmed? Articles for Creation is only typically used by unregistered editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft had been reviewed in mid-April; it was declined at that time because the sources were considered insufficient. You have been notified of this result on your talk page. I actually don't agree with that reviewer's reasoning, but since your draft has now made its way into article space (and thanks to Worm That Turned's intervention, you are now credited as the author, too), that should be moot. The reviewer is correct, of course, in noting that additional reliable sources would help, especially if you could find more English sources. Huon (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/California ISO

I made a reference. what gives? All i wanna do is start a wiki for the California ISO. I cant really reference anything else besides its own website. WTFMATE?!

why is it so difficult to make something on wikipedia? isnt it supposed to be easy? Im wasting time trying to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Fleming (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference is a primary source, which cannot be used to establish notability. If no other sources exist, the California ISO is obviously not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.

These rules exist because Wikipedia's content must be verifiable from reliable secondary sources - otherwise, every company in existence could try and write a Wikipedia article about itself based purely on their own website, which would leave us open to all kinds of bias and even falsehoods. Huon (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics

Hi,

I recently submitted this article for review and it was denied approval. I am really interested in this topic and was careful to use plenty of outside sources for the article. The reviewer said it was written as an "Advertisement." This topic is about a scientific approach to mathematical measurement and covers educational methods and concepts so I wrote it as best to describe the concept, I had no intention of writing an advertisement.

Could you please help me to correct this article or provide me with assistance in making the article sound less like an advertisement?

I appreciate your assistance with this matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbianco84 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your outside sources suffer from a range of problems. Quite a lot of them aren't actually "outside"; they are primary sources, quantile.com most obviously so. Many are useless as references because they do not support the text they are used as references for; for example, the various state department of education websites linked to in the "State Assessments" section do not even mention the Quantile Framework. Besides, I believe an organization reporting its own use of the Quantile Framework would usually also be considered a primary source, not a secondary one. Actually I don't think there's even one reliable secondary source among those references which covers the Quantile Framework in any level of detail.

To make the article sound less like an advertisement, I'd suggest to find truly independent reliable sources, for example scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals on education or possibly news coverage, and to rewrite the article based on those sources. We should also get rid of the "®", but that's a minor issue.

And while this is also unrelated to the "advertiesement" issue, the current article has a rather high level of redundancy: The "Emerging Mathematician" concept is introduced twice, the optimal Quantile difference between student and task is explained twice, and so on. Huon (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guy Benveniste

What kind of references do you want? I am describing the published works of an academic and I am giving the works as references. Do you want reviews of the works? But those are not references, since I am mentioning and describing published works I am listing the works. Those should logically be the references.Nadialebon (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We want secondary sources, sources not directly affiliated with the article topic. Benveniste's own published works are primary sources, and content should not be based on such sources. It should be possible to cite some of the scholarly articles discussing his work instead of his work itself. With any luck, we could even put Benveniste's work in relation to the rest of his field, as judged by other academics. Huon (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, more secondary references can be given. But I thought giving you the secondary reference to 9 articles commenting on his work in an issue of the main journal in his field ( a journal called "Planning Theory" which I mention in my text) which is devoted to his works and highlights his importance to planning theory would be sufficient. Basically, he was one of the first writers describing the political dimensions of planning. I say so and I give you a major reference. I will add a few more.Nadialebon (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:TheoA/Threejs

There is a warning in the "Review waiting" box saying:

   Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Threejs (move).

Should I follow this instruction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoA (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the ArticlesForCreationBot already moved the page, and no further action on your part is necessary.

As an aside, that article's references need some work. Some of them are other Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Several others don't even mention three.js and do not support the statement they are used as references for, and still others are primary sources, not secondary sources. Huon (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Motley slough bridge

I do not understand the objections of the reviewer of my article. He says I need more references. I have a government document which was the application for historic location. I have a newspaper article that mentions the bridge. Is there something about the article that is controversial? If there is some particular fact that needs reinforcing, that would at least give me a direction to go.

Yipper (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the bridge appears non-notable. To establish its notability, we have to show that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. I don't think the form constitutes significant coverage, and the newspaper article does not even mention the bridge's name. Also, the form pretty much says it's an example of a very common type of bridge - what makes this one significant? Huon (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the National Register of Historic Places is not notable enough? I was looking at the Wikipedia article about historic places in Mississippi. I thought I could flesh out a little bit about this particular item. Yipper (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the bridge is indeed on the National Register, it should be easy to find a reliable secondary source discussing it. None of the current sources say so. Maybe there are scholarly works specifically on the places on the National Register? Huon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you want a reference to confirm it is on the National Register? Yipper (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good start. But what I really want (or more precisely: What the article needs) are reliable secondary sources discussing the bridge in some detail - more than a passing mention in an article on a decorated tree stump or some directory entry. For places on the National Register such sources should exist - but we have to find them. Huon (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference to the online database lookup for the National Register. I will look for other information but I'm very skeptical that much exists. Yipper (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symarip Pyramid

Hi,

How do I view my submissions rejection comments??

Symarip Pyramid Symarip Pyramid (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symarip Pyramid, just as the note posted to your talk page said. In short, the draft needs more reliable secondary sources to establish the band's notability. Huon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toni Newman

Transgender Author Toni Newman is already mentioned on Jacky Jasper's Page and Hollywoodstreetking page

Please create page for Toni D. Newman

thanks75.83.156.116 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewers noted, you should use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which source supports which statement of the article. But I don't think the sources currently provided suffice to establish Newman's notability. Two are clearly primary sources, the book list does not seem reliable to me - there's no indication of authorship, of editorial oversight, or anything putting it beyond a random person's list of favorite books. Huon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ariel Cohen

Hello, I was told that "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." IM REALLY CONFUSED BY THIS. What IS missing? I think I cited everything. PLEASE HELP !!!! THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMTOM2012 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That message refers to an old version of the article which did not yet have inline citations for major parts of its content. But there is another problem with the sources: They are almost all primary sources, articles written by Cohen or published by organizations he's affiliated with. To establish Cohen's notability we need reliable secondary sources, independent sources about Cohen or discussing his work. Furthermore, even the primary sources do not necessarily say what they are cited for. For example, the claim that Cohen warned of an upcoming war between Russian and Georgia has as its reference his EMET Advisory Board profile, which mentions no such warning. Huon (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sir chris hoy

is there any chance that you guys could ever put a page of sir chris hoys timeline on wikipedia? because it is for a report that i have to do for school. if yous could put a page of it on here then that would make my day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.241.238 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Sir Chris Hoy which gives a timeline of his career. But I'd also say that a Wikipedia article should not be an acceptable source for a school project, though some of the sources given in the article may themselves be acceptable. Huon (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transactions on Combinatorics

Dear Sir/Madam, I was surprised by the reveiwer report (see the following); it is saying that "not adequately supported by reliable sources"; Why? You may easily check the hyperlink on "Transactions on Combinatorics". In the meanwhile, my submission is as the following one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archiv_der_Mathematik Please kindly reconsider this submission. Best Regards Alireza Abdollahi Editor-in-Chief Transactions on Combinatorics

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.176.161 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here. First of all, as the journal's editor-in-chief, you are likely to have a conflict of interest, and it might be advisable not to write the article on the journal to edit yourself, but to wait until someone else does so. Secondly, the journal's own homepage is a primary source; in order to establish the journal's notability, we'd need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Since it's a very young journal with less than a single volume published, such sources may be hard to find; in such cases it's best to wait until they become available. Regarding Archiv der Mathematik: Other articles with insufficient sources may exist, but that's no reason to create more of them. Finally, the draft's text was copied verbatim from the journal homepage, a copyright violation. Therefore I have blanked it. While there are ways to use non-free content on Wikipedia (or to release the content under a free license, see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries), those are usually only applied to images, and it would be easier to rewrite the article. Huon (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Disaster and Disabilities

There has been a mistake. The user that reviewed my article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Disaster and Disabilities, said that the topics discussed have already been written about; however, I am certain that they have not. What should I do? LStough (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have articles on disasters and on disabilities. Especially the latter seems a good place for information on special problems faced by people with disabilities during disasters. I don't think we have an article specifically on the combination, but I don't think we need one. Furthermore, the "Schools and Disaster" section isn't about the combination anyway. As an aside, if you are L. M. Stough, the author of various of the articles referenced in that draft, you may want to have a look on our policy on conflicts of interest. Citing one's own work might be considered problematic. Huon (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Think Design Magazine

Hi, Would you be so kind to explain the errors I am making with the below post? I have cited sources and have a reference list. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. thank you. Trisha

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Think_Design_Magazine&oldid=496699590

Banks200 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the references. The {{cite web}} template requires at least two parameters, the URL (which you had) and a title (which you didn't have). Furthermore, the "group=" parameter of the <ref> tag is used to group some of the foornotes - for example if you want to distinguish references from other footnotes. Displaying those groups requires separate uses of {{Reflist}} with the appropriate parameter each, such as {{Reflist|group=note}}. I don't think that was what you wanted to do and have thus removed the "group=" parameters.

Unfortunately I don't think your references show significant coverage of the magazine. In fact, the art dinners hosted by the magazine seem more notable than the magazine itself (and the art festival reference did not mention the magazine at all), but even then significant parts of the article, such as the claim that the institutions hosting the dinners are 5-star restaurants, are not supported by the given references (the Phuket E Magazine looks like a press release on a blog and is probably not a reliable secondary source anyway). Huon (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

problems with submitting a post

I am having problems submitting the below post. It states I am not citing and referencing correctly. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Think_Design_Magazine

Banks200 (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Huon (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Sporting Club Article Creation

Hi,

Please could you provide a little more information as to why my article about the City of Leeds Synchronised Swimming Club keeps getting rejected,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/City of Leeds Synchronised Swimming Club

I have now 8 external recognised references which cite the club, including references to two other wiki pages that mention us and in addition have listed TV shows (the BBC 1 and Channel 4) along with Press Releases the club has featured on as well as our standings in the British Championships. As for notable swimmers, we had an Olympic swimmer on our books for a few years, and so have listed (with references) her placings in both Olympics she competed in.

As for notability of the club, we are unique in the Synchro world as we are the based on a feeder club system and the club represents an entire ASA region. We are the first club to do this in the UK.

I look at other speed swimming club pages on Wikipedia and their club details are extremely sparse and vague with only 1 or 2 references, so am wondering why our article has been rejected 3 times.

I have read the sporting guidelines and can't understand what guideline we are not fulfilling. Synchroleeds (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other articles with insufficient references exist, but that's no reason to create more of them.

Many of your references are primary sources - the club's own website, the websites of organizations the club is a member of, and the like. Primary sources cannot be used to establish the club's notability; we need secondary sources for that.

Also, many of your references do not actually mention the City of Leeds Synchronized Swimming Club, for example the websites of the other synchronized swimming clubs (one of those links even gives an error message) or the BBC hair stylist's profile. In fact, I believe the only secondary source to mention the club at all is the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, and that's hardly significant coverage (in fact, it doesn't even say the club is featured by the BBC and thus does not support the statement we use it for). Furthermore, the article should be based on such sources, not just point out that they exist.

If the club is notable for its unique organization, surely someone not affiliated with the club or its parent organizations has written about that? Huon (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response and detailed advice which is very informative and very helpful for me to understand the rejections. So,

ASA NE Membership - point taken we are a member

But what about

Leeds City Council Website - we operate in Leeds but are not affiliated to Leeds City Council at all

Swim21 - This is a mark of approval from an independent body of the ASA

British Swimming - We are members of the ASA but British Swimming are a federation to which the ASA belong. British swimming hold the championships.

Leeds City Page in wikipedia

John Charles Centre for Sport in wikipedia

Camelot - who run the UK National Lottery

Now this last link have a press release on their website which we are mentioned on - but its a pdf. When I try to link directly to it, wikipedia complains that its not of suitable content. Is this because its contains gaming / lottery content.

Synchroleeds (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order: I'm not sure whether the Leeds City Council website comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a reliable source, and it may well be one, but the coverage is just two lines, hardly significant.

The SWIM21 Club Accreditation website does not mention the club, and the list of accredited clubs is published by ASA, which makes it once again a primary source. If the accrediting organization published a list of clubs accreditied by itself, that would still be a primary source. The list entry also isn't really significant coverage.

The British Swimming Results page, reference 14, does not mention the club, and the website of the organizers of a championship reporting the results of said championship is once again a primary source.

Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source.

A press release is usually not considered a reliable source, and if I understand the draft's paragraph correctly, City of Leeds participated in a promotion for the Camelot Group - the Camelot Group reporting on its own promotion is once again a primary source. I cannot tell without the link, but I'd expect the problem is more with the site hosting the content than with the content itself - Wikipedia has articles on lotteries, and it's not censored, but some sites which have been deemed "not reliable sources" are blacklisted to prevent promotional link spam.

In summary, even with the Leeds City Council we have at most two reliable secondary sources, both of which provide very short coverage of the club. But a Wikipedia article should be based on the coverage in reliable secondary sources, and that's currently not the case. My suggestion would be to look for more news pieces. Maybe the club's formation in 2008 was worth an article, or some especially successful performance was the occasion of a report?

As an aside, you might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - your user name suggests you are closely affiliated with the club on which you want to write an article. Huon (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To underline what Huon says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes articles about things that are notable, not simply things that exist. The various mentions and directory listings prove that the Club exists, but they don't prove it has been widely noticed and talked about in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agharkar Research Institute

My new page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Agharkar_Research_Institute ) was rejected on the grounds of copyrighted material. There is a remark saying that this page can be deleted any time without further notice. However, I want to have new material on the page which hopefully will not violet any copyrights. Can I continue to edit the page? Or will the page be deleted with my new contents without even intimating me?

Thanks in advance! Atul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowani (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the remark and continue editing, but please make sure that the new content is indeed not a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko

Greetings. New to creating articles for Wikipedia, I have prepared a new stub article, which I have posted for review, titled, Andrei Prychodko, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko yet I get the message that it is not currently submitted for review. To get this article submitted for review, I would be very thankful for your help01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpast (talk • contribs)

The article has been submitted for review; the "Article not currently submitted for review" message apparently simply hasn't been updated yet. As long as there's a "Review waiting" message and the article is categorized under "Pending AfC submissions" (the very last line), everything is ok and the article will be reviewed soon.

I saw that some of your references look a little dubius, though. Firstly, Wikipedia does not consider itself (or its non-English sister projects) a reliable source. Secondly, quite a few of your references are surprisingly old - for example I doubt Fritz Nathan's Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben, published in 1965, have anything to say about Andrei Prychodko, who was 14 at that time and not active in Europe until 1971. Fritz Nathan: Zehn Jahre Tätigkeit in St. Gallen: 1936–1946 was apparently published before Prychodko was even born. Also, quite a few of the references to websites do not mention Prychodko at all, and many others only serve to verify that some library holds one of his exhibition catalogues, which does not tell us anything about Prychodko. I'd suggest getting rid of the unreliable sources and of those that do not provide significant coverage of Prychodko and to emphasize instead those that do. Huon (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cornelius Carr

Hi,

I would be grateful if you could indicate which reference in this article isn't considered reliable. The first is a boxing record site widely used on other boxers wkipedia pages and the 2nd is a well establish regional UK newspaper.

Many thanks in advance.

John

Asturiasjohn (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Asturiasjohn[reply]

I don't know either. The newspaper article is clearly reliable. As a boxing World Champion, Carr is clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. I've accepted your article. However, the article could do with better sources, particularly for any personal information. Sionk (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i got three rejections on my article

hello there! after my latest (third) edited version of Science Supercourse article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Science Supercourse, i truly have no clue why the article has been declined. the editor did not however give any reasons. Just to clarify, i am representing the Library of Alexandria and i was trying to post an article about one of our digital initiatives "science supercourse" (http://ssc.bibalex.org) through wikipedia to increase the visibility of this project. i am keen to get this through so please help!

thanks Bibliotheca Alexandrina (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is consistently declined because it does not demonstrate notability. On Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter how well you describe what an entity is or how well you source the fact that it exists. That's certainly necessary for an article, but if you can't show that it has received significant coverage from independent sources, then it will never have an article. Increasing the visibility of a project is NOT a good reason to be on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you are not allowed to "represent" anything or anyone. You may only edit Wikipedia in your individual private capacity. Your username is thus also problematic. Roger (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (U Tun Hla)

Dear Editors,

An hour or two ago, I submitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (aka U Tun Hla) about a well-known late painter of Burma.

While the article was under review, I went back to do a small edit, and while doing so, suddenly found something had disappeared from my "Notes" (References) section. I tried to correct this. But before I could do this, I found that I had stumbled upon an "edit conflict" (someone else had started to edit the article also apparantly.)

I had difficulty understanding the directons for how to correct the matter. The problem of making the correction in my reference section was tricky to fix, too.

I decided to try and start all over again. I resubmitted the article. But the second time, I mistakenly entitled it differently with the "aka" not included in the title and reading as follows Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (U Tun Hla). I saved this page, but when I saved it, I could not find the polished copy of the article, although the notice read that it was under "review". The deep structure of the article does turn up, however, when I push the edit button. So the article as it should read is still there, in its deep structure, and under a new title.

Thank you very much. HsayaHsaya (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second copy of the draft had a broken HTML comment tag, and all text was interpreted as "just a comment not to be displayed". I fixed that. But I would suggest merging the two drafts' contents into one and blanking the other one (or better yet, nominating it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-user}} to the top) to save the reviewers some work.

An edit conflict happens if someone else (in your case, Citation bot) finishes his edits after you began editing, but before you want to save your edits. Help:Edit conflict gives tips on what to do in such cases. If the other party you're in conflict with is just a bot, you might ignore it and simply paste your preferred version over the bot's changes; the bot will return and re-do his fixes at a later time. But this requires caution; if there were intervening edits by other humans, they will likely not be amused if you just overwrite their edits in this fashion, so you't have to check the article's history to make sure the bot is the only one you're in conflict with. Depending on how complicated your edits were, it may be easier to simply re-add them to the article's current version. Huon (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article was declined twice. I do not know what I need to do next... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symarip Pyramid (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus).

Hi Wikipedia,

I have been working on my first article for Wikipedia, and have been excited at the prospect of its publication. Your most recent reply to me advises that it has been deleted because it appears to infringe copyright as being a cut and paste form http://www.ballyhannon-castle.com/history.htm

Yes it is a cut and paste of the official history of this castle as researched and prepared by local historian, Martin Breen, who undertook same for the Local Government Authority of Clare County Council, and which he also provided to the owners of this castle for posting on their site. I was publishing it on Wikipedia with Mr. Breen's assistance and support.

If you let me know what proof you need from me to establish this to your satisfaction, I will provide same immediately. If you would like Mr. Breen to post it himself, he will do so.

I had spent many days reading your editing and formatting procedures, and posting the article for approval, but I see that it seems to have been permanently deleted (or at least it is not visible in 'my contributions'). I really could not afford the same amount of time writing, editing and formatting it again, so if you could email me the full (html) text of it, I can either pass it on to Mr. Breen for him to attend to (if that is what you require), or I can at least save it on my pc until such time as you have approved its submission.

Best regards,

--CorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)CorneliusWilliam[reply]