Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

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.

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

November 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Jeanette Soterius von Sachsenheim

Hi Matthew Thank you for looking at my article. The situation is in my family are a series of artists from Transylvania. I have various documents and articles about them and they have paintings in various museums in Romania. Austria and Germany. These were all written before the modern world of the internet was with us.

My mother is now 93 and close to death so I want to get all this stuff 'out there' for her to see and to spread to a wider art world. I don't have the skills though or the time to learn them to do all this so need help. Is it possible to pay someone to layout the articles if i give you all the info including pictures and exhibition info etc.

I'm also struggling with how small the font is on Wikipedia......

Can someone help me please. Dylan White — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While online sources are obviously easier for our readers, Wikipedia doesn't require them. Sources such as art books published by reputable publishers or offline newspaper articles are entirely acceptable. For example, if London's Cemeteries says something about her, that's a perfectly acceptable source. But it's not clear what, if anything, the book has to say about her. Or maybe she has received some coverage on the occasion of the Transylvanian Museum buying her works? That should at the very least make the local news. But the sources must have been published - documents in your personal possession and unavailable elsewhere cannot serve as sources because our readers cannot verify what those documents say.

You may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. If I understand you correctly, you have a personal interest in Soterius von Sachsenheim; in that case it may not be a good idea to write the article yourself. I also had the impression that at times the draft showed some bias. For example, "she did a fine self-portrait in 1957" - who called that self-portrait "fine"? Some art critic? Who, and where? Or is that just a personal opinion?

While there are some "editors-for-hire", most Wikipedia editors are volunteers and work to improve the encyclopedia for free (besides, money would also create a conflict of interest). If you don't want to write the article yourself but know of reliable sources such as those I suggested above, you can request others to write it. The venue for such a request is WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, in this case probably Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession#Painters. Pictures by (or of) Soterius von Sachsenheim probably won't be helpful all that helpful; they may serve to improve an article, but not as the basis of one. The exhibition info would be better, and news sources or art textbooks mentioning her better still.

Regarding font size, it's probably easiest to change your browser settings: Most browsers increase the font size when you hold down the CTRL key and press the + key. See also: Firefox, Internet Explorer. I don't think there's a way to change the font size via your preferences here at Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nakili Film (2012)

I have been trying to get my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nakili Film (2012), accepted. Even after giving proper references, its been declined on the grounds of lack of notability. please make the issue more clear.

The main problem is that the sources you have don't confirm your draft's content, and even worse, they show that your topic doesn't exist. Nakili is not an upcoming Telugu film. It's just the Telugu title of the film Naan (not to be confused with naan where your draft links to). We don't need separate articles for versions of the same film dubbed in different languages; it's not as if the plot or the actors would change with the language. Instead we can add a line to the main article that it has also been dubbed in Telugu under a new title, and a redirect from the Telugu name to the main article. I have made those edits. Huon (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MIMS Ireland

I'm resubmitting my MIMS Ireland entry, but I'm afraid it might be rejected again because of lack of independent references.

MIMS is a widespread used medical guide for doctors in Ireland ( for long was the only one), and every single doctor in Ireland knows about it, but it is hard to find references for it (and not sure what kind of references?) The Irish Medical Times and MIMS (UK) both have an entry in Wikipedia without real external references either, so what's the difference?

I also tried to have an entry that does not look like an essay (I changed the 'origin' part for that purpose), but I'm not sure again if that will be enough as the only reference is an article published in the Irish medical Times and republished on an health website (this one is independent though.

It is frustrating though not to be able to get an entry for this very well known medical reference when both MIMS UK and Irish Medical Times seems to be there without particular reference requirements! Mcmousseau (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits, and the way forward is not the adoption of new, lower standards but rather the improvement of the currently problematic articles - if that proves impossible, we should delete those articles. We simply haven't yet bothered to clean them up one way or another. In my opinion the Irish MIMS is not notable enough for an article because the sources aren't all that independent (the Irish Medical Times also publishes MIMS, I believe) and don't suffice to verify major parts of the draft, such as "editorial content", "supplements" and "yearbook" sections. It's possible, though, that the reviewer takes a more generous view. Huon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17

Please advise me on the minimal revision needed to make the submitted article A Report from Group 17 acceptable. Which sections should be deleted, and what short additions should be made to fit the criteria? The article already seems to me more informative and carefully written than most that are listed at the Novels Wikiproject in categories ranging from Stubs to B-class articles. For instance, compare the B-class article God Emperor of Dune, the C-class article A Planet for the President, and countless Start-class articles or Stubs (A Bathroom of Her Own, A Boy in France, A Bend in the Road, etc.). These titles are randomly chosen, but there are countless similar ones. Is there a consistent policy here? It seems that I just had the bad luck to meet a Draconian reviewer or someone with a bias against fiction. Thanks for any help. Seoulseeker (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot guarantee you the minimal revision that would have to be made to get the article passed, and I'm not sure I see the significance - are you afraid of accidentally writing an article that's better than necessary?

I'm not sure the sources are sufficient to establish the book's notability. Both Motford and O'Sullivan mention the book in passing only; neither devotes even a single paragraph to it. Other sources such as the New York Times article or the League of Women Voters report don't mention it at all. I don't think that's the significant coverage we need to establish its notability, not even if we include the Kirkus Reviews article which might serve as a source on the critical reception.

And yes, the other articles you list suffer the same problem to a greater or lesser degree (the God Emperor article cites two sources that deal with the book and its author in detail, and other articles point out that the books won an award or achieved some other measure of real-world notability), but while other problematic articles exist, that's no reason to create more; instead we should improve (or, if necessary, delete) what we already have.

If the draft is to become an article, I'd say the "characters" and "setting" sections would definitely have to go. It would be great if we could salvage the "major themes" section, but right now it's original research - we may use the book as a source for its own content, but interpretation of that content must be based on secondary sources. The "explanation of the title" section seems a combiation of the obvious and of origial research - it might be best to merge the content, insofar as it's relevant to the understanding of the book, into the plot section. Discussing whether the Steinkopf Syndrome is aptly named is again something we shouldn't do without a secondary source. Huon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Huon, for your fast response. I asked about minimal required changes just to minimize the work involved, as I've already invested a lot of effort in this. I appreciate that the presence of inadequate articles in Wikipedia is not a reason to add more inadequate articles; but it seems obvious that there are a vast number of existing articles that are original research, less well-written, and about literature that is equally or less "notable." O'Sullivan mentions the book in passing because the reference is in his Dictionary of Children's Literature, where ALL stories are referred to briefly. O'Brien is a well-known writer who published only 4 novels, and there are currently no articles in Wikipedia about two of them. Though this story did not become as popular as the other three, it is important at least for what it shows of his themes and development as a writer. Anyway, I'll make the deletions and edits you recommended and try to find more secondary sources.Seoulseeker (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cockneys vs Zombies.

why isn't there an article for cockneys vs zombies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.184.109 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Because no one volunteered to write it yet. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Patrick Combs article

My recent submission for Patrick Combs was declined saying that Patrick Combs was only known for one thing, cashing a $95,000 junk-mail check.

I thought/hoped my submission well demonstrated through independent footnotes that Patrick Combs, although widely known for cashing a junk-mail check and performing a show about it, is also the author of two self-help books for youth that have 150,000 copies in print. A number far greater than your average New York Times Bestseller.

I also hoped that my submission demonstrated through independent footnotes that Patrick Combs is also known for twenty years now and to millions (through 1,300 live appearances and an interview on national TV with Barbara Walters) as a motivational speaker.

So although Patrick Combs is widely known for the check-cashing incident, he is not by any means only known for one thing - and many authors with less books in print and less public appearances are justifiably listed in Wikipedia.

Can you please advise me as to how to improve my submission to make this point?

Thank you. A54b (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC) A54b (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC) a54b

I think it might be difficult to argue that Combs' speaking career contributes to his notability. The sources for that part of his life all seem to be local newspapers reporting on a talk he gave in that neighborhood or on that college campus, all summarizing the same talk he gave at different occasions. To me that looks like routine news reporting that doesn't bestow notability per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If there was some non-local news piece on him that doesn't focus on the check, that would go a great lenght towards clearly establishing his notability. The baby delivery incident is even less helpful and tells us nothing at all about Combs (there isn't even enough context to be sure it's the same Combs, though the name probably isn't all that common) - but for his wife and kids, mentioned in the same paragraph, we apparently don't have a source.

And while that may not be all that helpful in getting the article accepted, I'd get rid of the "related links" section. Those links should be dealt with i one of three ways: If they are reliable sources and have something meaningful to say about Combs, they should be turned into references for that content. Some links unsuitable as references might still be turned into external links and added to that section - maybe the Cultural District would fit that bill. The rest should be removed. We certainly don't need yet another section of external links.

In summary, the article might squeak by as borderline notable, or it might be rejected again as not notable - it's somewhere in the gray area, and unfortunately I can't give better advice than to look for additional sources. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silver Cross Records

Hello Ritchie I can not understand why my first contribution here is not approved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Silver_Cross_Records Please be kind to explain me if you have time because I just follow other wikipedia contribution with same subjects in Serbia. There is no any doubt about what I write about this subject. Please explain me on this example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_Records_(Serbia) or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassivity_Music ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Centar — I try to understand the question of source but I can not because all article with same subject(record label from Serbia) use same source and all is approved --Gisnar 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While there may be other articles with isufficient sources, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. This record label doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we need such coverage to establish its notability. Sources need not be in English (although that's easier for our readers, of course); if it has been the subject of articles in Serbian newspapers, that would also be acceptable.

As an aside, you should check your draft's link targets. The "bands" currently include a professional assassin, a mythological herald and an English sci-fi movie. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will try to find more sources but I have one question. For.ex. my source is "Metal Hammer" UK Edition and this is independent source. I talk with owner of this label and he don´t know where to find this number on internet(sep. 1995.). And also there is more than 30 and more reviews all over the world (in Serbia,too) but this period is long time ago so there is no that kind of information on internet.There is only in PRINT form. So what do I need to do ?--Gisnar 09:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisnar (talk • contribs)

While online sources are easier to use for our readers, they are not required. If you provide sufficient bibliographical details to allow idetification of the source, print sources are acceptable too. Metal Hammer, for example, looks like a good source (depening, of course, on how much it has to say about the subject). As an aside, if I understand you correctly and the label was disbanded in 1995, we'd definitely need sources both for the disbandment and for the claim that it "has left a permanent mark on the Serbian rock scene". Huon (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I founded some print sources so I will add this to this page and delete any part of text which is not confirmed with source. Then, I will submit this page again and ask later someone to help me about find more sources for this subject.Thank you for your help.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The White Buffalo

Hello,

I am a member of the management team for the band The White Buffalo. I am attempting to submit my second edit for creation for the band's page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The White Buffalo . The first creation was not approved by Matthew Vanitas and while I have made a great deal of changes to the page, per Mr. Vanitas' guidelines, I would like to know what it is that I can further specifically do to get this page operating as soon as possible. Thank You The White Buffalo (band) (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Maybe you should leave it to others to write an article about the band you manage.

The article's main problem is its near-total lack of independent sources such as published independent reviews or newspaper articles on the band. With the exception of one NPR review, all other sources originate with the band or its associates. But we need significant coverage in reliable independent sources to establish the band's notability. See also WP:BAND for more specific notability criteria; I don't see which The White Buffalo is supposed to satisfy - and we'd need reliable sources so our readers can verify the band does indeed satisfy the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

±K½X´£¥Ü

±K½X´£¥Ü <<< help mem for ask — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.57.243.128 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you need help with? Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US

I would like feedback please on my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US, which I was told "read more like an advertisement." This is my first article and in my zeal to document online sources, I included press releases the organization published on PRWeb. I'm guessing that might be one of the problems, but I'd like to know if it is and also if there are other problems. I tried to follow the format of other articles published on Wikipedia about other nonprofits. I would like to correct this article and submit others, so I would appreciate specific feedback on how to revise the article so that it will be accepted.Editor.corlight (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)editor.corlight

Yes, press releases are indeed not cosidered reliable sources because they originate with the organization they report on and because they aren't subject to editorial oversight. And there's a lot of press releases - even the SFGate article is just a reprint of a press release. Many other sources, such as this LA Times article, don't mention RaiseAChild at all and thus cannot show that it's a notable organization. For that purpose we must show that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. I don't think the current sources satisfy that standard.

There are also issues of tone. "The need for safe and loving homes for children is at a crisis level in the United States" - says who? That seems like original research to me, and even if we had a source, we'd need one that links that crisis to RaiseAChild to avoid an original synthesis of published sources - something Wikipedia shouldn't do; we should only report what other sources have published already, not draw our own conclusions. Huon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czon

Can someone help me with this article so it will be right ? Sincerly/Maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.193.212.209 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Czon is notable enough for an article. The Kalmar Läns Tidning article doesn't mention him at all, and the other sources have very little to say about him. Fotosidan looks like user-submitted content to me that hasn't been subject to editorial oversight: It's not a reliable source at all. To be an appropriate subject for an article Czon should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him, such as newspaper articles or possibly art magazines. I don't think that's the case. Huon (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 11

Draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R. Ross Holloway

have created and submitted a new article on an American archaeologist, R. Ross Holloway. I have received a response that it was rejected because it was a blank entry. It was suggested that I remove all text above my entry. I have done that and resubmitted but continue to be told it is rejected. Can you advise, please? SSLukesh (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your draft hasn't been resubmitted for review. That was still the old decline message which, while now obviously no longer accurate, should remain as a historical record until the draft is accepted. When you are ready for a resubmission, you can follow the instructions in that message ("When you are ready to resubmit, click here"), or you can resubmit it manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft.

Right now most of the draft's sources seem to be primary sources, research papers written or at least co-authored by Holloway himself. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him or scholarly reviews of his work (written by others, not by himself!). Maybe he received some news coverage on the occasion of his retirement? Or a Festschrift on the occasion of his 75th birthday discussing his impact?

The lone independent source, the award citation, currently isn't used for all it's worth. For example, it recounts Holloway's education and can not only be used to source that part of the draft (which currently doesn't cite any sources at all) but even expand it. And that's just one part of the draft that might be sourced to that award citation - I believe it could also replace the primary sources.

On the other hand, Wikipedia articles should cite more than one source to establish the topic's notability. I don't expect that to be much of a problem with Holloway - a named professorship, an academical award and significant achievements in his field should guarantee notability - but technically we do need the sources to show that others have indeed taken note of him. Huon (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Gray (journalist)

I tried to upload a photo of Captain Andy Gray with the first British Army Newspaper Unit serving in North Africa and Italy during WW II, Oct 1940. I own the photo, but it was obviously taken by the British Army as it is his regiment in full uniform. I have no idea if there is any sort of UK copyright on it from 1940, but I can't upload it anyways because it states "This article doesn't exist! The article Andrew Gray (journalist) could not be found." How the heck am I supposed to enhance the verifiability of the article if I can't upload actual photos and other information. Andy was pre computers and internet. But if you go to the British Museum’s Newspaper Library (http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk), they have hard copies of all the British Army Newspaper Units Papers – they also have copies of every issue of NME with Andy Gray as Editor from 31st May 1957 until 1st January 1972, but none of them have been scanned and digitized for the internet yet. I have an e-mail from the current editor of the NME confirming Andy Gray's importance and time as editor of the NME, but I don't know how to reference e-mails to my article. If you go to the NME article, you will find all sorts of links to articles on NME contributors who were a flash in the pan compared to Andy Gray. I have first-hand knowledge and photos of Andy Gray as he was my father's brother. I can't believe my biography has been rejected. I hope my additional references will help, but likely you will have to go to a library to verify the newspapers and books, or order them from Amazon.com like I did. Thank you for reconsidering my submission. JasMor (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing on close relatives is discouraged.

The photo is almost guaranteed to have been copyrighted. If we're lucky, it's Crown copyright which ends 50 years after publication - then it would probably be in the public domain by now (the British crown has clarified that it considers the copyright to have expired worldwide; compare for example this discussion which also explains the intricacies of British Crown copyright). If we're certain that's the case, you could upload the photo to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If we're not certain about that, we must assume the image is still copyrighted in the US - until 95 years after publication, I believe. In that case we'd have to argue that using the image constitutes fair use, but Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires non-free images to be used in at least one article - a draft is not enough. Thus, if we cannot be sure copyright has expired, we cannot (yet) use that image.

But a photo of a person or a military unit is not a good source anyway. How is it supposed to confirm statements in the article's text? The same holds for some other "sources" - for example, Gray may be in the 1965 Beatles award video, but I can't tell, he's not mentioned, and even if I were able to recognize him that video doesn't provide any information on Gray whatsoever. While the photos in the V&A collection are listed for the search term "Andy Gray", they provide no context.

Yet other sources are primary sources written by Gray himself (and that would also hold for the issues of NME for which Gray served as editor). Wikipedia content should be based on reliable published sources that are independent of the subject - we need others to have written about Gray.

Newspaper articles and books written about Gray, such as The History of the NME, are much better sources, and while it's easier for our readers if the sources are available online, that's not a requirement. You may want to have a look at the Google News archive; they sometimes have rather surprising stuff digitized. At a glance I couldn't find anything about this Andy Gray, though.

When you refer to print sources, you should provide enough details to allow our readers to identify the relevant work. For example, one of the references is the "Audit Bureau of Circulations (UK) Historic data on the abc UK website" - and somewhere in that historic data may be something about Gray, but the website itself doesn't mention him, a search for his name produced no results, and I have no idea what that reference was supposed to tell me. Similarly, the source for Gray's job as editor of NME doesn't mention him and thus cannot be used to verify that Gray replaced Sonin as editor in 1957.

In summary, there's just a single good source - the book. I cannot tell how much that book says about Gray, but to be considered notable he should have been covered in some detail (say, at least a paragraph) in more than just one source anyway. Thus for now I wouldn't bother with the photo and instead try to find better print sources that actually confirm what the draft currently says about Gray.

As an aside, I haven't checked the other editors' articles, but while I don't doubt that other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EdotFlo (Rapper)

Good morning, I am trying to submit a page for review. I am hitting the "save page" link, but it keeps going back to the page that says it is NOT under review. Stephanie M Williams 14:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EdotFlo(rapper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laydeeclipper (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. It did submit for review. The submission template appears at the bottom of the article and is eventually moved to the top by robots and the old "under construction" templates removed. I have reviewed the article and I've had to decline it. All the sources are posted either by the subject or his management. Apart from the lack of independent coverage, it is clear from the contents of the article alone that not a single one of the notability criteria for musicians has been fulfilled. This artist is at the very start of a possible career, but is nowhere near achieving this yet, and the article appears to be an advance publicity attempt for his first gig at a local club. I would advise you quite strongly to abandon the attempt to create an article for him at this time. There is no chance any other reviewer will pass it. Also, if you have any connection whatsoever to LC Management, I suggest you to read WP:COI for guidance when editing under these circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

mobiles15:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the current mobile brand all around the world which is good and at the top most level progress and every features in it and with all the correct and current facilities?15:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.174.139 (talk)

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. I believe Apple and Samsung are currently dominating the smartphone market, but ultimately this is a personal judgement call. See also Smartphone#By Manufacturer which presents a table of customer satisfaction by manufacturer for 2010 and 2011. Apple leads, but of course I can't tell whether that's because of their superior products or due to other factors such as the satisfaction of being part of the "in" crowd. Huon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Clark (race engineer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steve_Clark_(race_engineer)

Hello there, i received "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. "

as there are few information in the internet / website, so i interviewed the race engineer weeks ago. would like to know how to clarify this kind of resource? Thanks.

Ricci

Wikipedia requires sources to be published so our readers can read them for themselves and thereby verify the article's content. They need not be published online; print editions of newspapers will do just fine. But a personal iterview with the subject is not verifiable and is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources - basically, we need others to have written about Clark, not just Clark's self-representation. Huon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moving Day for MS

how can i add pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.47.245.50 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If the picture is in the public domain or comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard or (if it's available online) request it to be uploaded at WP:Files for upload. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add it to the article.

But the draft's main problem is not the lack of a picture, but the fact that it's a copyright violation of the organization's website. I have thus blanked it and nominated it for speedy deletion. If the copyright holder is willing to release the content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Licence it could be reinstated (see WP:Requesting copyright permission for details; see also the example declaration of consent), but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. If such sources can be found it's probably easier to rewrite the draft from scratch than to bother with the copyrighted text. If no such sources can be found, the organization is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Casey King

Hi,

I cannot seem to figure out how to enter references. When I save and then look at a preview my footnote numbers remain, but none of the sources appear at the bottom of the page. They are all sources that can be found on the internet with links, but what am doing wrong?

Your help is much appreciated!!!

Thanks.Kittythedog (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To display references you need a dedicated references section with either a <references/> tag or a {{reflist}} template. I've added one and tidied up the references (for example, there was a surplus <ref> tag that made an entire section vanish). However, as the reviewer noted, those references are almost all Yale-Based (and that includes the sales blurbs for his book on his publisher's website). To clearly establish King's notability we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him or independent reviews of his works - if you could find where the reviews those sales blurbs are excerpts from were originally published, that might make a good source. Huon (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

November 12

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NewQuest Properties

Hi, I created a page [[1]] based on information found in independent reliable sources, including news articles (not press releases) and government pages, and it was declined. I went into chat to ask why it was declined considering the info was based on that found in the sources and the person responding <+bjelleklang> said The sources appear to satisfy the notability criteria. Then it showed in chat [~chris@wikipedia/Bjelleklang] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] and no one else responded. Can you please help? Thanks.Forthea (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)ForThea

Some of the sources are indeed reliable sources, but this one is a press release (a government press release, but that doesn't make it more reliable), this one, the source for the most fawning praise, "is composed from multiple sources, including [...] user submissions", which makes it unreliable (and it explicitly says so itself), and this source openly states it was written by Holly Walsh, director of marketing and public relations for NewQuest Properties. I am not sure whether KGNB is reliable or not, but it doesn't mention NewQuest anyway. These sources are used for a heavy dose of praise - "leading real estate professionals", "one of the quickest growing retail development firms", "strategically located" and so on. All these statements sound good but ultimately provide no information whatsoever. They only serve to make the draft sound like an advertisement.

There are also statements I couldn't find any secondary source at all for, such as the claim that NewQuest "leases more than 12 million square feet in Texas". Where does that come from? And while multiple sources mention NewQuest's seat of business in Houston, the source actually cited for that very first sentence doesn't say so. (As an aside, the lead section should be a summary of the article proper; that's clearly not the case here.)

Conversely, some of the sources provide significant background information that didn't find its way into the draft: While Texas A&M University is cited for NewQuest's rapid growth, the reasons - a housing boom in Houston and low interest rates - are ignored.

In summary, there are clearly enough sources for an article on NewQuest, but the current draft uses several dubious sources to provide a one-sided positive image of the company. Huon (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PIRA Energy Group

I have added references from cnbc, cnn, FT, and NYT..Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmart (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the FT article (that would require registration), but the NYT and CNBC don't provide any relevant information on PIRA and just quote an executive as an oil analyst. The "CNN" source is hosted on PIRA's own website, and while I lack the player they require, I doubt anything hosted by PIRA counts as an independent source. We require significant coverage, not just a few mentions in passing. Basically, we need other people reporting on PIRA, not PIRA people reporting on other stuff. Huon (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sid Griffin (2)

Two months ago I submitted an early version of this article on the musician/writer Sid Griffin Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sid Griffin (2). At the time I knew nothing about coding and hoped that the reviewer would add the necessary marks. The article bounced back to me for repair, of course. I resubmitted it yesterday, having learned a fair amount about coding. It came back to me again from an editor saying that there was already an article on Sid Griffin under review, which I suspect is just the first version. For this second version, I had re-keyed it completely and done it in Sandbox, which I hadn't used for the first version. Anyway, I hope this latest version, to which I've added some internal links for other articles, will be acceptable. I've been writing about music and musicians for several decades, with print credits ranging from Los Angeles daily newspapers to various rock journals. I know how to edit for grammar, punctuation, etc., but coding--Coding!--is a new experience, and some of Wikipedia's directions aren't the clearest.Billwasser (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Bill Wasser

You're right about what happened, and I don't think that should have happened - the old version wasn't submitted for review at all when the new one was declined. Still this is why it's better to improve the old version than to begin a new one from scratch: A lesser possibility of error.

I had a look at the new draft, but unfortunately it still has problems that prevent its publication. Firstly, three of its nine references point to primary sources such as Sid Griffin's own website and his book. But Wikipedia content should be based on sources that are independent of the subject. Primary sources must be used with care, not as the sole basis of significant amounts of content, and not for contentious claims. For example, if the only source for Griffin's award is effectively Griffin himself, that doesn't seem to be a notable award. A newspaper report on that award would show that others have taken note. Shotgun Solution is apparently a blog, not a reliable source. But even the truly reliable sources, such as LEO weekly are stretched beyond their limits: That article is cited for the etymology of Griffin's given name and for his college degree but doesn't support either claim. And AllMusic is cited for the origin of Flak Jacket but doesn't say the song was originally written for the Long Ryders. The AllMusic biography has quite a lot of other stuff to say about Griffin, but apparently we don't really make use of it. And the Perfect Sound Forever interview seems to be used as an external link (for more information see here), not as a source for anything our draft says - it may be indeed better suited for that purpose, but that removes yet another of the draft's references.

In summary, about half the sources are either problematic or not used as sources at all, and two of the remaining four don't say everything they're cited for. I haven't checked the print sources and cannot tell what exactly they say, but the Ugly Things piece is not listed in Bill Wasserzieher's list of articles, which doesn't inspire confidence.

My suggestion would be to remove or de-emphasize the primary sources, get rid of the blog, turn the interview into an external link, and rewrite the article content so that it's actually based on what the good sources say about Griffin - the AllMusic biography and the LEO weekly piece (which could do with a link to the online version and some additional bibliographical details - it's p. 14 of the July 2007 issue according to the cover). If you kow of additional reliable sources we could use, so much the better. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

November 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Edgar Wilson "Matt Wilson" (musician)

I submitted this article for creation and was asked by the reviewer to add references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_Edgar_Wilson_%22Matt_Wilson%22_(musician)

I have added the references and "saved" the article. There is no response and I am unsure if I am leaving out a step... Is there something I need to do to resubmit an article after the corrections have been made?

Thanks, Patrick Click (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, re-submission is not automatic. The decline message you removed contained the relevant instructions: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." You can also submit a draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I have resubmitted it for you. In the process I've also re-added the decline message; it should remain as a historical record until the submission is accepted. At a glance the sources looked good to me, but they don't have much to do with the draft's text, and the tone seemed problematic as well. Take for example this sentence: "Those sacred gospel sounds, the rock n’ roll redemption of the Beatles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ray Charles, Billy Joel, and the sleek funk of Stevie Wonder and Bill Withers, shaped his formative years and have provided an indelible imprint on Wilson’s repertoire and performance aesthetic." Says who? None of the sources I looked at egaged in quite as much praise or discussed the influences on Wilson's style. That sounds more like an elegy than a encyclopedia article. His performance at the 2000 Olympics seems unsourced unless that's what the Texas Senate honored him for five years later, and while I'm at it, a secondary source such as a newspaper would be much better for that Senate resolution than the Senate itself in order to show others have take note of the honor Wilson received. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silver and Gold Exchange LLC

Was hoping to get more details on what is causing the article on the company to be rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M_deanne/sandbox It was just basic details about the company so it can be added to companies in Keene, NH. Please advise if there is something I should take out or add to assist in getting this approved.

Thanks, Melissa

M deanne (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To get the article approved, its notability must be proven. Currently, the sources are primary sources, meaning that its notability cannot be confirmed. Please add external mention of the corporation by independent sources. A412 (Talk • C) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Path of Miracles

To Whom It May Concern, I wrote a scholarly article about Joby Talbot's Path of Miracles, and while I'm updating the references to include more secondary sources, I'm having questions on why notability is an issue with this particular composition. With Talbot's growing contributions to film and theatre (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Alice in Wonderland, respectively), plus his many other works published in the US, UK, and abroad, I'm trying to open a resource to others who may stumble upon this work and find interest.

Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated, and thank you for your time.

Austin.delarosa (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited; while Talbot himself may be notable, not all his works are necessarily notable enough for an independent article of their own. This work in particular doesn't seem to have received much coverage in independent sources - the draft's main sources are Talbot himself and the CD booklet. Other sources, such as the Confraternity of Saint James, don't mention the work or Talbot at all. I believe the only independent source that covers this work is the Classical Source review, and while that's pretty thorouogh, we seem to use only a tiny part of it.

If we cannot find additional reliable sources, it may be better to just merge a short mention into the main Joby Talbot article, which is itself in need of better sources. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any relevance or weight given to the notability of the author of the given "CD booklet?" The liner notes cited are written by the producer of the recording (Gabriel Crouch). Crouch is well known in the choral world in performing: he was the Head Chorister of the Westminster Abbey choir and toured for eight years as a member of the King's Singers men's chamber choir. He has numerous records under his belt as a performer and producer, including publications by BMI. His conducting has national attention as he now is a lecturer at Princeton University, heading three choirs. The list goes on, and this is all available via his Wikipedia article.
Does this add notability to Crouch's writings as an authoritative source that one may reference regarding Talbot's composition?

Austin.delarosa (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If the liner notes were written by the producer, that makes them even less of an independent source. He may be notable, but he's still writing about his own production. We want sources written by people without a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zoltán Kodály

My article was rejected because there is already an article written on Zoltán Kodály. However, this article is not about that. It is about his COMPOSITION, Te Deum. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwhit (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If the draft is supposed to be about the Te Deum, the title should reflect that. Thus, MatthewVanitas moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Te Deum (Zoltán Kodály). Of course the draft itself should also focus on its true topic. I'd expect an article on the Te Deum to begin with someting like this:

The Te Deum is a composition by Zoltán Kodály first conducted in 19...

And here it gets difficult because the draft contains general information on Kodály and information on the Te Deum in general, but very little about Kodály's Te Deum in particular - I couldn't even find a relevant date. For a good example have a look at Te Deum (Bruckner): No one could mistake that for an article on Bruckner; it provides detialed information on the composition itself and its history. Something like that is what we should aim for. Huon (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Chapters of the Imperial Court System

Feedback:
"This will never be an appropriate article. Wikipedia is not a directory--the place for this information is on the organization;'s web page. Not here. Please do not resubmit it."

I understand this well enough and am not trying to fight for something that is inappropriate but I was, maybe misguidedly, seeing this page as under the same category as the following:
List of Lambda Chi Alpha chapters
List of Wikimedia chapters
List of NIGP Chapters
The last one is identical to the page I submitted in the way it uses sources, external links, and its content, the only difference is formatting. Is there something I can change about the direction of this page to make it acceptable? Was this reviewer just very quick to reject it? I think it would be very convenient to have a link from the organization's page to view the chapters without having to leave Wikipedia, which is a similar case for why these other organizations have chapter lists.

After re-reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists page, I am not sure what criteria the reviewer used because they were not specific and I think they may not have looked into this very thoroughly. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the existence of other bad articles does not justify the creation of more. Wikipedia is not a directory.

Unless you can provide ample evidence that this list fulfills the criteria in WP:GNG, it is not notable enough for an article. A412 (Talk • C) 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The last one, in my opinion, shouldn't exist either. I have proposed it for deletion. The first two, however, show some coverage in reliable sources that are independent of those lists' subjects: Someone independent has actually bothered to list those chapters with some details. Your draft shows no evidence of such coverage; therefore it would probably be considered to fail the notability criterion for lists. While the reviewer's comment seems unnecessarily harsh, I tend to agree with him that it will probably not be possible to turn this list into something fit for inclusion. The main article on the organization already relies much too heavily on primary sources. My suggestion would be to try and improve that article's section on chapters, all of whose sources are currently affiliated with the organization itself. That seems more helpful than the bare list of chapters. Huon (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explicit feedback. I will attempt to find more sources to get it in line with the first two sources because i do think I can find more notability and I may resubmit it then. For more clarification, is this issue mainly notability or was the reviewer talking about some other criteria? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's primarily a notability issue; if you could find reliable sources discussing the chapters (as a group, not individually) in some detail, that would be a significant improvement. But as I said above, I doubt that's possible, and if some independent coverage on the chapters can be found, it would be better to improve the main article's section on chapters than to produce such a list. Huon (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed

Not sure why the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed is said to read like a advertisement. I have tried to just state facts and keep it neutral. The sources are all valid. They can be verified by going on line to the websites. In fact, Nevill Drury is acknowledged in Wikipedia, so surely that must be a valid source and is where I got most of my information. Could you please be more specific in what Wikipedia considers a valid source? Thanks, joeJoebzz (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The draft doesn't seem unduly laudatory to me, but I do have some doubts about the sources. The two online sources, Gallery East and Cynthia Blasingham, don't look like reliable sources to me. The former is a commercial website that ultimately aims to sell art, and the latter is just a self-published website without any editorial oversight. I haven't checked the print sources; at a glance they look better, but the fact that the author has a Wikipedia article doesn't by itself imply the book is a reliable source - for example, we also have articles on quacks and scammers whose publications are anything but reliable. That's probably not an issue with Drury, but I wonder how much that one page actually says about Reed.

Furthermore, not all of the draft's content is in fact based on the sources - the source for the exhibitions gives a list that ends in 2005, but the draft gives a list up to 2007. We should bring the draft's content in line with the sources, either by adding better sources or by removing unsourced content.

Anyway, I have asked the reviewer for a clarification. Huon (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick reply and trying to help me to understand a little more. The last source for the 2007 exhibition that you questioned is from reference No 8 <Majteles, Debra: David’s text at odds with the image. Arts, The Maccabean. Your Voice in the Community. 20 July, 2007 Pg 9>, as she talks about the 2007 exhibition. The 2006 exhibition is from the Cynthia Blasingham reference. I think what has happened is that you have no way of knowing the content of the articles I have sourced as they are mostly in hardcopy. I actually have pdfs of all the articles in question. Is there some way I can get them on line to you? It may clear up a lot of issues. Thanks again. JoeJoebzz (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

While local newspapers like the Maccabean are difficult to find, that's not what threw me off-track: There wasn't even a footnote telling me I should have looked at the Maccabean.

I can't think of a good way to make the PDFs available. The newspapers and other sources are likely to be copyrighted, and I don't think we can claim fair use for the entire articles. Someone making them available online would be likely to commit a copyright violation. Unfortunately the Maccabean doesn't seem to have an online edition either. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I'm Legoktm, the original reviewer. I just reviewed the article again, and for the most part the wording itself is neutral. I think the main issue I had with the article was the length of the Awards section. The article is not-NPOV based on how it was written, but based on what content was included and how it was portrayed. I think the good news is that this article requires very little work to get it approved. The suggestions that Huon are mainly what needs to be worked on. Good luck! Legoktm (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ron Rafael Shimshilashvili

Can you help me edit it good or whats wrong with it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeedwon (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that while the article has dozens of external links in the "references" section, it's impossible to tell which source is supposed to support which of the article's statements becaust the draft doesn't use inline citations and Help:Footnotes. Which source states Shimshilashvili can speak Dutch, Georgian and Spanish? Which source says he started his career at 15? Who said he's not just an actor, but a "talented" actor? And so on.

There's an example footnote in the infobox which should provide a source for his height. That's how footnotes are created. See also Help:Referencing for beginners for a more detailed explanation of how to use footnotes.

But I believe quite a few of those external links aren't the reliable sources we're looking for anyway. For example, the model directory in that lone footnote doesn't have an entry for Shimshilashvili and thus cannot confirm his height. Facebook and Twitter are primary sources, but we're looking for sources independent of the subject. They're also not reliable because there's no editorial oversight. Neither are IMDb, YouTube or blogs. This source refers back to Wikipedia, a fine example of circular sourcing (besides, the article they refer to was since deleted because it showed no indication of notability; compare the deletion discussion). Yet other sources don't mention Shimshilashvili at all. Maybe Shimshilashvili has been the subject of sigificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him, but right now any such sources are lost in the pile of dubious sources. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Who Did What to My Article?

First, I got a message saying that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles F. Wurther had been created. The next day, I got this:

1. (cur | prev) 08:45, 13 November 2012‎ Fram (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (27,060 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Fram moved page Charles F. Wurther to User:TLee53/sandbox without leaving a redirect: Not even at the correct title, not a proper AfC creation at all) (undo)

TLee53 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, MatthewVanitas accepted your submission and moved it to Charles F. Wurther. Fram disagreed and moved it on to its current location, User:TLee53/sandbox. The title was indeed wrong: It's Charles F. Wurster, not "Wurther". I'm not sure what else he considered problematic, though; I have asked him for a clarification. I haven't read all of the article, but there seem indeed to be a few problematic references that don't mention Wurster at all, such as this newspaper article which doesn't support what it's cited for. Other sources are primary sources written by Wurster himself; those should probably be de-emphasized or gotten rid of in favor of secondary sources. Huon (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the title, I had for some (now strange) reason thought that the page was moved to AfC without TLee53's request to do so. I must have looked at the wrong version or something, as this was not what happened. I have apologised to MatthewVanitas for this mistake. I see no reason why this page can't be brought back to AfC for review, I'll not interfere with it again. Fram (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it had already been reviewed by MatthewVanitas, I moved it back into the mainspace to Charles F. Wurster. I also added a maintenance tag for the references issues. Huon (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. The Ann Arbor newspaper reference cited by Huon as problematic has been deleted, and the text in that section reworked. I've tried to eliminate Wurster's own recollections (even though they were published in someone else's account of the organization's early history), but kept one citation because I don't see anyone else giving the date or name of the newspaper in which his letter-to-the-editor appeared (the newspaper has changed hands, and its archives, apparently, do not go back that far). I have, however, kept citations to Wurster's own published research. I'm not sure I know the status of the article. Is there something else I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLee53 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Article relies upon one non-notable source"

I submitted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Minnie_Adkins last week. It was rejected with this comment: Article relies upon one non-notable source. Rushbugled13 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see two issue:

• (only) one source
• source is non-notable

Do I need more than one source?

Does "non-notable source" mean that the author of the source is not in Wikipedia?

Also, I have been directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:42

This book http://www.amazon.com/O-Appalachia-Artists-Southern-Mountains/dp/1556700989 has a chapter on Minnie Adkins (the subject of the article). It is "a factual, widely-published book" so I assume it would be considered a reliable source.

So, should I not use the current source (it is a pdf of the catalog of the Minnie Adkins collection at the Kentucky Folk Art Center) which the reviewer called "non-notable" or should I keep it with the additional widely-published book source?

Thanks for your help.

Mshook (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated Mshook (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good questions! Yes, you normally need multiple reliable, independent sources to prove a subject's 'notability'. The catalogue produced by the Art Center is not entirely independent because it has a vested interest in promoting its product, Minnie Adkins. I am guessing the reviewer by "non-notable" meant non-independent, or inadmissable. On the other hand, the book you mention above will be a very important source, especially if it contains a whole chapter about Adkins. Definitely use it to cite as much of the article's information as possible (citing page nos.). I also notice the article says Adkins has works in the permanent collections of several notable art galleries - if you can find proof of this it will help her meet the WP:ARTIST (alternative) notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

George Lisle - Pioneer

I have full family backing and documentation about my Great Grandfather that founded the town of Chetopa, Kansas. I have written an article for Wikipedia, which has been denied. This information is not only factual but historical and should be part of the town's history online.

Can you help me with this?

Thanks.

Bill McCloud

Soonermedia (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you mean this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. George Lisle - The Pioneer. I see you have tried to cite a couple of sources, but have not given full information about the sources - author/title/publisher/date etc. It will help your cause considerably if you can do this. Put the source info between <ref></ref> tags. Remember information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, but subjects also need to be proven to be widely known and important. You'll need to show that your g-grandfather has been written about in relaible published sources, such as books or newspapers. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

November 14

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jay Reed

Hi Huon I originally clicked on the 'Edit' section of your answer to reply, before I realized that there was the new question section at the top of the Help desk. So, I will re ask the question. If I have doubled up, I do apologize...

Thanks so much for the quick reply and trying to help me to understand a little more. The last source for the 2007 exhibition that you questioned is from reference No 8 <Majteles, Debra: David’s text at odds with the image. Arts, The Maccabean. Your Voice in the Community. 20 July, 2007 Pg 9>, as she talks about the 2007 exhibition as well as life of the artist. It is also a entry in the Gallery East site <http://www.galleryeast.com.au/prints/reed/main.htm> The 2006 exhibition is from the Cynthia Blasingham reference. I think what has happened is that you have no way of knowing the content of the articles I have sourced as they are mostly in hardcopy and not available on line. I actually have pdfs of all the articles in question. Is there some way I can get them on line to you? It may clear up a lot of issues. Thanks again. JoeJoebzzJoebzz (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just replied to your comment above. No apologies necessary; whether to start a new section or to reply to a previous discussion is something of a judgement call. If the previous discussion is too old there's a risk that a reply to it might get overlooked; other than that, both options are fine. Huon (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iris (scientific software)

Hi,

Please could you advise a noob on whether the following is suitable for submission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Iris_%28scientific_software%29

Many thanks for your time, Bblay (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The draft doesn't cite any independent sources at all. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or reviews in scholarly journals, to establish a topic's notability. In fact, Wikipedia content should be based on such sources. Without them, the draft cannot be accepted. Huon (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Hosker

Hi,

Can you please be more specific as to exactly why you do not think Dan Hosker's article is qualifying for notoriety? I have provided several sources of nationally and regionally published articles backing my work. Simply googling his name will back everything in this article as well. I'm not trying to be difficult, but don't really see an issue with my submission. If you could be more specific as to the reasons, I will provide you with whatever you need.

Thank you,

Justin Wierbonski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrobert87 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Those articles seem almost all to be blog entries and opinion pieces, not true news coverage, and several apparently were written by personal friends. The latter are not independent sources. (There's one exception, a Miami New Times piece, but the entire Miami New Times website except the blogs seems to experience some kind of difficulty that makes the article currently unavailable.) Opinion pieces are usually taken to be reliable only on the author's opinion, not on matters of fact, and they don't suffice to establish Hosker's notability without more reliable sources to back them up.

Furthermore, the article should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the article's statements. I don't think any of the sources support the claim that Hosker's "ability to mesh with the almost indescribable playing of Bill Orcutt of Harry Pussy was a feat in itself" or that he "was known as one of the most prolific and experimental musicians in the South Florida music scene" - known by whom, by the way? See also WP:Referencing for beginners for more detailed help on the technical side of referencing. Huon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harald Lamb Mooney

Hello Harald was my 2nd cousin - which is why I wrote about him & his father John Mooney. What else do you want to know about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.26.185 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about close relatives is discouraged, especially when you write because they are your close relatives.

What the draft lacks are reliable sources such as newspaper articles that establish Mooney's notability and that allow our readers to verify the draft's content. I currently don't see even a claim of notability. Mooney was born, received an education, worked and died. So what? Why should he have an encyclopedia article? Huon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of Nyzzy Nyce

I'm new to Wikipedia as a contributor and my first submission seems to have a neutrality tag on it. Does this stay on their forever and if not how is it removed? My first submission is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nyzzy Nyce

Smitag01 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That neutrality tag can be removed when the underlying issues have been resolved, but right now parts of the article read like puffery. For example, his rap battling "quickly created buzz around the city"? Says who? Such a claim would need a secondary source. Similarly, the claim that Hip Hop for the City is "one of the largest community driven and collaborative Hip Hop based music projects in the world" doesn't seem to be supported by the given sources - one of the organizers called it "the largest community-driven and collaborative hip-hop-based project that’s ever come out of Fort Wayne", not quite the same thing. These are just two obvious examples. Huon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with "Public support/criticism" section of the "Tar Sands Blockade" article

Hi!

Wikipedia editor Nthep reviewed my submitted article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tar Sands Blockade and said that the article needs a lot more information on public reactions, specifically support and criticism, for the Tar Sands Blockade. My trouble is that I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources, actually any sources, be it newspaper or otherwise, that actually discuss public reactions to the Tar Sands Blockade in a comprehensive manner. I suspect that one of the reasons this is is that the Tar Sands Blockade, being a controversial protest campaign involving many public illegal actions, is being reported on more often by those who would support it, whereas the mainstream media is largely silent on it. I could use suggestions on how to reliably demonstrate what public reactions to the Tar Sands Blockade are. If there aren't any reliable sources, I don't believe this article isn't ready for Wikipedia because it has gathered much controversy and has had many news articles written about it (not to mention because actress Daryl Hannah and 2012 US Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein got arrested supporting the Tar Sands Blockade), thus I think it's noteworthy.

Nthep also suggested that the article appears to be written in a non-neutral tone... while I can somewhat see that, I largely don't. A friend has suggested that including motivations for the Tar Sands Blockade at the beginning seems biased, and suggested moving it to a section within the rest of the article. I also see that my use of phrases like "solidarity actions" instead of the more neutral "events" could be part of it. Could you offer more insight on how to achieve a neutral tone?

Thank you!

Mnek (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Mnek

I don't see how "controversial protest campaign" and "no reliable sources on the reaction" can both apply. Where's the controversy? Especially when the campaign engages in public illegal actions, shouldn't those receive mainstream coverage? Won't at least some those sources indicate the level of public support enjoyed by the campaign?

I just checked the news sources on Jill Stein's arrest, and the mainstream newspapers covering the event, such as the Washington Post or the Tennessean, don't mention the Tar Sands Blockade - at least not by name. And this Washington Post article explains that Tar Sands Blockade is just a small group among a wider protest - something I wouldn't have learned form the draft which happily subsumes unrelated protests against Keystone XL under the Tar Sands Blockade banner.

Regarding the non-neutral tone: The draft relies heavily on sources associated with the Tar Sands Blockade itself or with the wider environmental cause. Much of the draft's bias could be resolved by getting rid of those sources in favor of more mainstream news coverage. We may end up with a shorter article in the process, but the current draft's level of detail seems excessive anyway. 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What will you say about Tropical Depression 17W and Tropical Depression 18W

For them, it is only a start class. How about you?Hurricane trackers (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it would help to include links. I assume you speak of Tropical Depression 17W (2010) and Tropical Depression 18W (2010), but I have no idea who "they" are - the "start" classification was added by The Anonymouse who accepted the submissions. According to the WikiProject's assessment scale, that indicates "an article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." That seems appropriate. Personally I don't think either article satisfies our notability criteria because neither tropical depression has been the subject of significant coverage; unless such coverage in reliable sources can be found, they should probably be deleted. Huon (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/peter niven (jockey)

Hello,

I submitted the above article for review about one week ago and have just noticed that I should have used capitals for his christian and surname. Is it possible for me to alter this or will the reviewer do it for me?

Thanks,

Gomach Gomach (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The draft was already accepted, and the reviewer correctly capitalized the title: It's now at Peter Niven (jockey). Thank you for your good work!

Technically, you could have moved the draft to a new name, but since accepting the submission involves a page move anyway, I'd say it's unnecessary to move the draft around (which leaves remnants of its own) just to fix such an obvious typo in the title. If the draft had been accepted and moved to a wrongly capitalized title in the main article space, another move to the correct title would have been necessary, of course. Huon (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Algernon Churchill

I do not understand the reason given for not accepting this new page. it states We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. and I do not understand what it means by a blank submission. Please could you explain? MrArmstrong2 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The submission was reviewed on October 13 when it looked like this: No text at all. The draft's text was only added on October 29, more than two weeks after the draft had been submitted for review and reviewed.

But I doubt the current draft's sources, a probably self-published genealogy website and a bookseller, are reliable sources, and the draft seems to draw on other, undisclosed sources anyway. For example, the sources don't give the dates for Churchill's posting in Stockholm; the draft does. The draft also says Churchill's brother was "entrusted with the last message from Queen Victoria to the Duke of Orleans in 1901" and cites a source which mentions neither Queen Victoria nor the Duke of Orleans. The brother's Times obituary apparently does mention that message, but how is John A. Churchill's message delivery relevant to William A. Churchill in the first place? The sources also don't say Churchill's book is "still the standard reference work on early European paper and papermaking".

So in summary Churchill may be notable enogh for an article, but we need much better sources to show that he is: Newspaper articles or maybe a published review of his book on papermaking. Huon (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChemWindow i

Editing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChemWindow i

Why does my title say ChemWindow i when it should just be ChemWindow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkernan1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas probably made a mistake when he moved the draft to the present location. That should be corrected when the draft is accepted; I don't think it's worth the effort to change the draft's name right now.

I have some doubts about the references, though. The various Scientific Computing articles mention the software in passing without providing any details. The paper by Li, Wan, Shi and Ouyang seems much more comprehensive, but is hardly used in the draft and flat-out contradicts it regarding the development date. The draft should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements; see WP:Referencing for beginners for the technical details. Huon (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

November 15

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danial Schon

my article gets rejected again and again, i have added valid information and valid resources as well, kindly help me with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Danial_Schon

Eman ehsan (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your sources are, in order: An interview with Schon that doesn't provide any sigificant information on him and just uses him as an expert on the Dubai housing market; the publisher apparently also accepts press releases and doesn't seem reliable to me. Wikipedia itself, and Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable (that would be circular). And what superficially resembles a Pakistani version of the Daily Mail, using the Daily Mail logo but getting the "y" wrong, which seems to have no information besides this one article that is credited to an unnamed "special correspondent". Furthermore, two of those sources don't even mention Danial Schon at all. That's hardly the significant coverage in reliable sources we need to establish Schon's notability. Huon (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unitus Seed Fund

I have been trying to submit this page for some time now. But it keeps getting rejected. Can you give me some pointers to improve it Eshaninan (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)