Help desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

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]

I just added several external independent links to the article and hope that will work. Thanks a lot for your help!Pelicula1000 (talk) 08:31, 11 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]

Hey guys, coincidentally I just started creating an article for CAISO myself, here and I can assure you that there are plenty of sources out there. I know next to nothing of the subject, so any expert assistance would be most welcome. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:09, 8 June 2013 (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]