Help desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30[edit]

Article rejected three times[edit]

My article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wison Group has been denied three times. After the first denial, I re-wrote my article to make it as objective as possible. After the second, I removed all citations from the corporate website, and found additional articles. I was also able to find three academic journals writing on the topic and sourced each. As the sources are all in Chinese, I don't think it makes sense to actually quote the sources. The third denial is discussing notability, but I believe both the news articles and the academic articles together provide notability.

I have asked for help from a reviewer and wikipedia-en-help and haven't received any helpful feedback. Please help me and let me know what I can do to get my article submitted. Thanks in advance! RossPKelley (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)RossPKelley[reply]

I agree the company is probably notable, but right now it's hard to tell. Many of the references clearly are not the reliable independent sources we're looking for - there are multiple press releases, and some pages look like wikis or other user-submitted content. I tried to find Xingru's and Dsu's works, but Google Web, Google Books and Google Scholar all came up empty. Are those books? Scholarly articles? I can't tell, and of course I couldn't verify what they say nor judge whether they are reliable sources.

My suggestion would be to get rid of all the dubious sources, emphasize the reliable secondary sources like newspaper articles (and the more "mainstream" the newspaper, the better will it serve to establish notability), and provide enough bibliographical details for the obscure references to allow our readers to find them - an ISBN or ISSN would probably be helpful. Huon (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Jarman[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Jarman

Hi I am new ueser of yours and I was wanting to know what references you need to verify the information I supplied. The video's posted on YouTube I've supplied in the references section are surely all sufficient as it is live TV?

Please help

(Aimee861 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. I've had a look through, and one of the concerns I have about the references is that some don't obviously seem to have significant coverage of Mr Jarman in them. For instance, the BBC references are just about an episode of a show he happens to be in, while the YouTube clips are mostly concerned with somebody else. Another issue with YouTube clips is that, unless it's very obvious that the video is an "official" one presented by a notable organisation, they tend to be regarded as unreliable sources. Having said all of that, the first reference does appear to sustain notability. You've mentioned he's been commenting for Sky, Bloomberg and CNBC, so see if you can find some references from those organisations. Also I'd remove "a young Black/Persian" from his description, as it's irrelevant to his notability as a financial commentator. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BYK Additives & Instruments[edit]

Why this article was not spotted and released? Best regards, (Sabine Ehinger) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Additives & Instruments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabine Ehinger (talk • contribs) 06:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - your article is in the queue of articles to be reviewed and approved. There are about 350 outstanding articles to review as I write this, so I would expect yours to be reviewed within the next day or two. After a quick look, I couldn't easily tell whether it could be accepted or not - some information is supported by references, but I'd have to look through more carefully to see whether they are reliable sources and, if so, they talk about the company significantly enough to make it notable. Hope that helps. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello nice Wikipedia people[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am very excited about my very first little webpage with you great AFC people. I hope it is acceptable to upload to your website. I hope I did it correctly. Please let me know if I made any errors. I'd like to know when the upload will be confirmed so I can tell my friends on Facebook to logon and see it. Very important: how do I protect my webpage from people who I don't like from changing it? Can I put a password on it? Oh my webpage is "2032 Summer Olympics."

Yours truly, Lionelt

Hi. You cannot protect articles on Wikipedia from being changed, unless in extreme cases of vandalism. You certainly can't protect them against other people expanding on content, or deleting stuff that is unreferenced. If you want to create pages that you own, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Sorry. Also, the article 2032 summer olympics already exists as a redirect to Summer Olympic Games. It is unlikely to change from this in the meantime, due to not much being currently known about the 2032 games. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but: Huh? Lionel, you're an editor with years of experience and 26 created articles to your credit. Why would you be using AFC in the first place? This reeks of WP:POINT, to be honest. To answer your questions: There's a backlog of 350 articles awaiting review, so it will take a few days until it's your draft's turn. It is likely to be declined because the text is a duplicate of parts of our 2028 Summer Olympics page and doesn't deal with the draft's purported topic at all. Ritchie333 already explained that you cannot protect your page from changes. It has irrevocably been released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 free license; the fine print says: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Huon (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you found me out. I had to come here since the article appears to be salted: this is a good faith creation. I guess I have "Olympic fever." I will say I'm impressed with the way you guys run this place. Anyway, you have to admit the part about "Can I put a password on it" was pretty funny, yes? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Stop that!
It's far too silly!
Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Lionel, maybe wasting people's time is funny to you, but not necessarily for people who come on here and answer questions in good faith. Chill.

Regarding "Why would you be using AFC" - I've been on Wikipedia for years and years, but I still use AFC when creating an article that I might be accused of being biased (eg: Bullets and Daffodils - I am a friend of a friend of the guy who wrote it) or creating stuff from a fan's point of view (eg: Stones in the Park) to make sure when the article goes in, it's had a proper second opinion against it. It doesn't have to be "newbies only". --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance that this is a good faith creation (which I find very hard to believe given that the draft's content is 2028 copypasta under a 2032 heading), we cannot help with the salting of 2032 Summer Olympics anyway, and I'd suggest either deletion review if you want to overturn the deletion, or requests for page protection to have that title un-salted. The most low-key approach would be to add {{edit protected}} to the salted article's talk page and directly ask for creation of the page. I don't expect admins will be amused by your attempts to wrongly present yourself as a newbie, though. Huon (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really have to bring in the Colonel? <grin> (Btw love that template--it's a HOOT!) Well, I guess the least I could do is look over a couple AFCs for you, as a penance. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Article Rejection[edit]

Good Morning,

I was wondering why my article wWikipedia Talk: Article for Creation/Canadian Centre for International Justice was rejected, when I wrote it from scratch and provided links for additional information. I am trying to create a page for the organization I work for, The Canadian Centre for International Justice. \

How do I avoid this copyright problem if I wrote the article from scratch and still got rejected?

Diane.

Hi. I assume you mean Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Canadian Centre for International Justice, which has been rejected as not having any reliable sources. However, it's generally not considered a good idea to write articles about organisations you work for. For one thing, people may accuse you of being biased towards the company and not having a neutral point of view, and for another, anyone else can come along and write negative things about the company (provided they are supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources), which might put you in a bad light if you're trying to use the Wikipedia article for any promotional or publicity purposes. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halit Cingillioglu[edit]

http://www.brugge-turkishconsulate.be/ https://www.dhbbank.com/Portal/EN/Products/4045.aspx http://www.demirbank.kg/en/-shareholders-structure.html http://www.cfaktoring.com.tr/en/ortaklik.asp http://www.bankpozitif.com.tr/web/111-573-1-1/bankpozitif_-_en/investor_relations/about_us/brief_history http://www.bankpozitif.com.tr/web/111-572-1-1/bankpozitif_-_en/investor_relations/about_us/subsidiaries http://www.guneysuaol.k12.tr/ http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kultursanat/belgeler/2009_Oduller.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.82.84 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References for the draft should be added to the draft, not to this help desk. But most of these look like primary sources to me. To establish Cingillioglu's notability, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with my first ever submittance. Help![edit]

Hi all,

I was wondering if somebody could please help me with my first ever article that i am submitting,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Highland Golf Links

If anybody could help me with this and maybe suggest how to get it accepted or even change some stuff for me and give me tips for my next article that would be great.

Many Thanks Robbie Robbierapson23 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key problem with this article is that it reads too much like an advertisement. For instance, in the opening sentence, you describe the courses as "world-class" and then mention "three of the best hotels in the Highlands of Scotland". The trouble with this, is that "world-class" and "best" are incredibly subjective. I could argue that other hotels in Scotland such as The Inn On The Tay are the "best" because they're cheap and good value for money, which is probably not the same criteria you'd chose! You need to remove these terms in order to describe the business as a neutral point of view. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Unfortunately it is pure advertising... WP:Peacock phrases such as "world class" "some great golfing breaks and packages", "three of the best hotels in the Highlands of Scotland", "enjoy and explore this unique part of the United Kingdom" and so on are totally unacceptable. Wikipedia does not care how great you think your golf course is - only if totally independent sources with a good reputation have said it is the greatest/bestest/awesomest may such language be included in the article - with direct atribution. Another major problem is the violation of the Wikipedia is not a guidebook rule. The current text looks like it was lifted straight out of a brochure. Roger (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger and Ritchie,

Thank you for your help, obviously just a bit too patriotic for my own good!

I have tried to change it removing all of these faffy words and make it more factual, however it still might not be quite right. Perhaps you could remove for me everything that wouldn't be accepted and i can go from there.

Thanks again!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Highland Golf Links Robbierapson23 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit better, but I think there's a further problem in that it simply isn't necessary to mention the golf courses individually. It's an article about Highland Golf Links as an organisation, not the golf courses. Just a single reference to the names will do. This might take the article down to a stub, but people would be less likely to fail a review based on looking like an advert then. Oh, and there's no way you could be as patriotic as some people... --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie. HAHAHA. Not his biggest fan and i will just leave it at that!

Robbierapson23 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nadine Barrie Smith not appearing as submitted?[edit]

Hello, I have drafted a new page for the researcher Nadine Barrie Smith and keep clicking on the "submit here" text, but my article still shows up as an unsubmitted Article for Creation. Is there just a backlog of pages awaiting review, or is there some problem unique to me? thanks, Pmjones (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Patty Jones (Pmjones)[reply]

Hi. There's a backlog of about 350-400 articles at the moment, so you should expect to wait a few days for the review to take place. In your case, there are a number of references which appear on first glance to sustain notability, but it's important that somebody checks these thoroughly, particularly in the case of biographies, even if the subject is deceased. So I'd expect this review to take a while. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "unsubmitted" message is outdated; a bot will soon get rid of it. As long as there's a "Review waiting" message and the draft is categorized among the pending AfC submissions (the very last line), it will get reviewed. (The outdated message remains for technical reasons - it's easy to have users semi-automatically add something to the draft, such as the "review waiting" message, but next to impossible to have a simple clickable link that will remove a message from the draft. You could remove it manually, but it does no harm, and you can just wait for the bot to come along.) Huon (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lime tree digital marketing agency[edit]

Hi there, I'm a bit confused as to why my sources haven't been accepted for this article - they're major news services quoting the facts that have been presented in the article.

Are you able to provide any guidance please?

G.

G2003 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters piece is a primary source, written by someone directly associated with LimeTree. The Independent article isn't correctly linked to (the link in the draft points to the LimeTree homepage, not the Independent) and only uses a LimeTree employee as spokesperson about the state of online business without providing any details about the company, and the Financial Times article is not only hidden behind a rather tedious registration but doesn't provide much coverage of the company either - in fact, it doesn't even support the sentence about the "important practical intervention that was particularly valuable for independent shops" that's sourced to it; the FT says "such help was not necessarily useful for some independent shops", quite the opposite. In summary, I don't think those references show significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject, and twisting them ito a positive spin certainly doesn't help. Conversely, there are no secondary sources for such information as the CTO or LimeTree's clients. As an aside, the draft should probably follow the LimeTree website in spelling the company "LimeTree", not "Lime Tree". Huon (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thank you. I'll have another go at it. G. G2003 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing primary sources[edit]

Hello. I'm a newbie, so please bear with me. I'm not affiliated with my subject and while I personally think he's a fine magician, I've tried not to let that affect what I have written. My article Pat_Page_(magician) has been accepted (thank you) with the comments 1. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification and 2. This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.
1.I could quote his autobiography where he confirms the biographical details in The Scotsman: should I do this, or is that a primary source? There are articles and books that refer to Page in passing (eg "Pat was great and taught me lots"), should I refer to more of those?
2. I've only used the primary source (his family's website) to link to his publications: is this wrong? I could put links to the publications on Amazon or other commercial sites, but I thought that would be unnecessary advertising and would need to be changed if the vendor catalogue changes. Should I instead remove the reference to www.patrickpagemagic.co.uk?
3.Have I done the right thing in listing the DVDs that he has produced or are those primary sources? I can delete the references, but one of the challenges with writing about a dead magician is that most of their publications are either small runs with no ISBN or videos/DVDs which they are part of.

Thank you for your help. Centretear (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I passed this through AfC and added the tags, so I'll answer your questions in turn

1. I felt there was enough notability for Pat Page to qualify for an article in Wikipedia, but some of the references weren't up to scratch. Very specifically, the initial biographical details containing his date of birth and death were cited to a wiki, which is inherently an unreliable source. Please do cite it using his autobiography, click here to see how to add citations from books. While primary sources cannot be the only sources in article, it's okay to have some for non controversial things - basic biographical details will be fine.

2. A reference from Amazon might be considered better as it proves commercial publication and is less likely to result in link rot. Up to you, really.

3. Unfortunately if a book or DVD is not commercially produced with an ISBN number, it tends not to be considered notable. Commercial publishers have a standard of editorial control and peer review which helps make them reliable sources.

The only other thing I would like to see improved in the article is some of the text in the lead section to be moved down to the main article, as it's a bit "top heavy" at the moment. But overall, the article shows promise and I think passes the notability barrier for Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sierra Media[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sierra Media

How do I make my article into one that seems more notable? As far as I know, all of my information is fact and is cited, however it keeps being declined for it being an autobiography. Is there away to make it look more encyclopedic?

Lexiryman (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Lexiryman[reply]

All your sources are primary sources such as the company's website and its Facebook page. To establish that the company is notable, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage. In fact, Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources, which this article clearly is not. As an aside, I don't think an article on a company could be called an "autobiography", but if you are closely associated with Sierra Media, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the "history" section seems unduly laudatory - it provides a single detail about the company history (its foundig date) while singing the praises of the founder's experiences. If no secondary source has commented on the founder's background, neither should we. See also WP:MISSION for related problems. Instead, it would be nice to have some (sourced!) hard facts about the company, such as revenue figures or the number of employees. Huon (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pound Puppies (1986 TV series)[edit]

I'm making an article for the 1986 TV series called Pound Puppies because I heard on the Pound Puppies article that some of the portions in that article should be separated into new articles, such as this article. Should I add any info and what websites should be recommended in order to be related to the Pound Puppies 1986 TV Series? I'd be grateful for your help or advice. Thank you! (Tony Rigs 1991 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You need some significant coverage in reliable sources to show the TV series is notable - maybe it has been reviewed in newspapers, or there might be some coverage in textbooks on the history of Hanna-Barbera. I believe IMDb is usually not considered sufficient for this purpose, TV.com seems to be user-submitted content and thus not reliable, and the Copyright Office website provides only trivial coverage. Sources for a pre-Internet TV series will probably be difficult to find (though they need not be available online), and unfortunately I cannot point you to specific websites. Huon (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]