Help desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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 27[edit]

PLEASE HELP Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamieson Jones[edit]

Aloha,

I am the on-line content manager for Jamieson Jones. I have referenced him in Billboard.com articles, allmusic.com articles, he has writing and production credits on a GLOBALLY Selling Major Label Album: Strange Clouds - B.O.B (2012)

Please view his facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jamieson-Xavier-Jones/250748111709302?ref=stream

And his soundclick page: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=1255707

He is an actual producer, I'm not sure why the article keeps getting declined. Please help, any assistance would be great.

Unfortunately his Facebook and Soundclick pages are primary sources, and all the other sources provide only trivial coverage. None of them writes even a single sentence about Jones. But to establish his notability, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, the secondary sources don't suffice to verify the draft's content - for example, they don't mention Jones' place of birth or his education. Maybe Jones has received some newspaper coverage?

As Jones' on-line content manager, you might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Maybe it's better to wait until someone not quite as close to Jones writes an article. Nice music, by the way. Huon (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are many, many, musicians and bands, and the notability bar is quite high. Have a look at WP:MUSIC to see what's required, but as a general rule of thumb, if the subject of the article hasn't had several chart hits, you'll have a tougher time arguing notability. For what it's worth, I play in a band and I've had albums released commercially, but I'd be the first in the queue to fail a review for anyone creating an article about me as I'm just not that notable! --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Lipow[edit]

To Who it may concern regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Lipow The Article has been declined stating the need for reliable sources. I have included reference links which take you right to the publication or website page that backs up what is stated regarding actor credits. there is no source to back up the history portion regarding school and childhood statements, but they are facts. Do I need to remove them? The main point is to back up the acting credentials which are listed, which my reference links provide. There are no book , page number, or publishing data, as the information is on the internet and directly accessible via the reference links provided. Should I place a reference number in the body after a particular credit that more directly reflects that particular statement? I don't know what to do. Thank you in advance for your assistance. 66.215.9.3 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facts that are unsupported by sources must indeed be removed; Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Adding a reference number in the body would be a significant improvement; you can also use footnotes for this purpose.

But the draft's main problem are the sources themselves. Some are primary sources such as Lipow's LinkedIn page or his personal homepage. Others are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards; this includes wikis and other user-submitted content, but also most YouTube videos. The rest provides only trivial coverage. But to establish Lipow's notability (and thus to accept the draft), we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Maybe there are reviews discussing the vocal effects he provided? Huon (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geek & Sundry[edit]

Hiya. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geek & Sundry has now gone through 2 reviews. First decline was for context (which I kinda understood the reasoning for), and then second decline as non-notable (which I just can not see any reasoning for at all). Could folks take a look at this and comment? Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had never seen an article for a YouTube Channel... I read the article. I saw the channel. You obviously feel strongly about it or have some connection to the channel from experience possibly. I had never heard of it before I read the article; I didn't feel like the article substantiated notability. If indeed it is something of historical significance, by all means, revert, clean it and accept it. I won't be offended. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 06:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't see anything in your response about looking at the references? Given that the subject has been significantly covered in articles in the Economst[1], Hollywood Reporter[2], Forbes[3] and others, I don't understand why this would be an NWEB decline.

And as for connections, I'm just a fan - both of the channel, and of WP:AFC. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the references are concerned, that's part of reading the article in my world. Revert the decision and push the article through, Eclipsed. I will not be offended. The horse is dead, hun. You can stop beating it. Thanks for your help. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 06:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for reverts or horses, but I did put the draft back in the review que. C'est la vie ;) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 07:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article accepted. Quite evidently a widely reported subject in a number of very eminent news sources (as listed above). Sionk (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my page not being created (Umra narayan)[edit]

Sir the temple is located in the inner core of one of the rural districts of uttarakhand and please consider the thing that in india media only covers those articles in which they can make most of the profits and then viewership.This temple has lots of religious attachments with people of gram sann and nearby outskirts of rudraprayag dist.AS per nirmal gram award was awarded in the year 2008 and it would be very difficult for me to gather this information , but its 100 percent true.Whereas if any information regarding this temple is found wrong i am ready for any type of punishments.But plz don't be an obstacle towards our great affinity to our devine lord .Religion never needs any proof, our inner intense bhakti/ belief makes it true . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloak1 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer's note said, your draft was not accepted because it has no reliable sources. Such sources are necesseary both to establish the temple's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. Such sources need not be newspapers; textbooks about architecture, local history or religion would also be acceptable if they discuss the temple in significant detail. But while religion may do without proof, Wikipedia requires it. Huon (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why my article has got rejected ? I have submitted the proper proofs with evidences. Article named pubmatic.

That article is extremely short and almost devoid of context. Some of your sources are indeed reliable secondary sources, but as Eclipsed pointed out, press releases are not, some others seemed to be primary sources, one interview doesn't even mention Pubmatic and the other isn't the best of sources because it's ultimately the company's co-founder speaking about the company. I believe enough good sources remain to establish notability, but the article text makes hardly any use of those sources. From the draft, I cannot tell what exactly the company does, there are no revenue figures, we learn nothing about the number of employees, there's not even information on the place of business. Is it an American or an Indian company? Both?

My suggestion would be to get rid of the less reliable sources and to expand the article based on the better sources, such as the Economic Times coverage (which, for example, gives the revenue as $100 million before the interview itself begins). Huon (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hickory Ridge Landfill, Conley, GA[edit]

The page I've developed (referenced above) has been rejected. The reason given was that it did not have reliable sources.

In reviewing the qualification for reliable sources, I believe my page falls under the following category:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: - the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; - it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); - it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; - there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; - the article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Carlisle Energy is the source of this information and has the appropriate expert knowledge of the system reported in this page.

Can you provide further information as to why this was rejected?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlisleEnergy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although self-published sources can be used to clarify or get a second reference, they cannot be the only references used. You need to find reliable, third party sources to substantiate the claims in the article. If the organisation really is an expert, somebody else will have written about them. Furthermore, I notice your account name is the same as the source quoted, which would suggest you have a conflict of interest in creating the article, and would not be able to write it using a neutral point of view. You should avoid creating articles that you are in any way involved with personally. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Internews Europe[edit]

Dear wiki editing community!

Thank you for your reply and comment on [Articles for creation/Internews Europe]. I have already had a look at Wikipedia:Writing better articles and I have tried to include as many reliable references as possible, see for instance TV5Monde(2011), European Commission (2009) or http://atelier.rfi.fr/profiles/blogs/des-medias-pour-le.

I also tried to change some of the language to make it sound more like a wikipedia article i.e. instead of 'strives' used now the word 'tries' in the first introductory paragraph.

I really don't know what to do more. Internews Europe is an organization with a long history of experience in international media development which particularly tries to support freedom of expression, investigative journalism and the voices of local communities excluded from the mainstream media, actually an agenda similar to wikipedia! I think their message, like wikipedia’s, is we are allowed to know. I therefore thought it would be worth writing an entry about this organization in particular. I will try to continuously improve the article, but it would be helpful if you provide me with some more tips!

Best, Stoefferlh (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the EC report was prepared by Internews Europe (among others): It's a primary source. So are many other sources, too. Still others, like blog posts, are not reliable because there's no indication of fact-checking or editorial oversight. The CommGAP Discussion Papers don't even mention Internews Europe except by citing some primary sources. But Wikipedia contet should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I believe there are enough truly independent sources to write a short article on Internews, but the current draft would probably have to be gutted to get rid of content based only on primary or unreliable sources. Huon (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Telfer Adam - Biographical article[edit]

The article has now had all the references coverted to the style indicated in the Career section as kindly demonstrated by the third reviewer. A photograph of him has also been added following the advice of the second reviewer on how to carry out this task.

The article has now been thankfully accepted, but mention has been made of no 'Lead Section'. Will it suffice to add a first paragraph along the lines of 'Hamish Telfer Adam a Biographical Article detailing his involvement in the sport of karate', or can you suggest, or edit it directly, with something more suitable or appropriate.

Thanks

Robert Robb (remorobus) Remorobus (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've created a lead for you, which should hopefully illustrate how it's done. Basically, it just needs to summarize the main article. The subject isn't my area of expertise, so hopefully you can improve on this. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Fighuhldz/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elemental Technologies, Inc. Hello, I'm new to writing for Wikipedia, and working on the existing Elemental Technologies article to remove the flags for advertising and external links. Any advice you can provide is appreciated. Full disclosure, I am a 3rd party contractor working for Elemental Technologies to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks! Fighuhldz (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since that article has existed since 2011, this isn't really the right help desk. You might ask the Guild of Copy Editors for help with improving the article; there's also peer review if you want to invite more scrutiny.

I noticed that some of the references are primary sources or press releases (and those are usually considered not reliable). Conversely, many paragraphs seem only half-sourced, with references for the first few sentences and nothing for the last. For example, the "Elemental Accelerator" section's first half is sourced to a press release, the seconh half not at all. All content should be supported by reliable references, and while primary sources are acceptable in some instances, content should not be based solely on them.

The external link issue for which the article is tagged is rather easy to solve. Per WP:EL, the article body should not contain external links. If the pages currently linked to are reliable sources, they should be treated just as the other references; if they are not (and I don't think they are), we should not link to them. Exceptions are the lik to the company website in the infobox and the "External links" section at the very end of the article, though that should be shortened as well: A link to the company website and one to badaboom (which has its own domain) should suffice; we don't need links to every sub-page of the company website. Huon (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For advice re Article for creation. Title Jonathan Westphal, philosopher[edit]

Is there a way out of this Catch-22? Proposed article declined with comment 'To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.' . But this contributor (Qexigator) cannot find the 'other' one, and so cannot edit it. How is that saving time? --see T_ and Q_ below.

T_Txcrossbow's comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jonathan_Westphal_(2) Submission declined on 27 July 2012 by Txcrossbow (talk). This was the comment: This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Westphal, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Q_Qexigator's reply

Article for creation. Title Jonathan Westphal, philosopher Thank you, Txcrossbow/Stella/Batphone, for taking a little time to give this proposed article your attention. Your answer implies that you have not considered it on its merits, but have decided it is a duplicate, and the title has been changed from Article for creation. Title Jonathan Westphal, philosopher to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Westphal (2). Please consider the following and advise.

1_As a result of seeing the discussion between Thewikibeagles and Hgilbert at Talk:Philosophy of Freedom, Qexigator had inferred that in matters of philosophy Thewikibeagles has a skill and knowledge beyond the ordinary; and, seeing that Thewikibeagles had proposed Jonathan Westphal as the subject of a new article, but that it had been disallowed for want of notability, Qexigator made a google search which promptly yielded websites with information sufficient to establish 'notability' by any reasonable standard. Qexigator has not seen the article proposed by Thewikibeagles but has drafted one using the information mentioned User:Qexigator/Jonathan Westphal and proposes that it be used as the start of a new article or for revising the User talk:Thewikibeagles's. Qexigator (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikibeagles&oldid=503642847"[reply]

2_It is not self-evident that there is sufficient reason to exclude Jonathan Westphal from (the Wikipedia) List of philosophers (R–Z) that includes the following:

R. R. Rockingham Gill

Michael Tye (philosopher)

Qexigator (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qexigator/Jonathan_Westphal&oldid=503907258 --Qexigator (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---Qexigator (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which other draft this one is supposed to be a duplicate of; I couldn't find the other draft, though an article on Jonathan Westphal was speedily deleted about a week ago for a lack of notability. On its merits this submission would still have been declined because all its references are primary sources such as his university's biography page or his own works. To establish Westphal's notability we need sources by independent people writing about Westphal, such as reviews of his works in academic journals or maybe newspaper coverage.

I don't doubt there are many other insufficiently sourced philosopher articles, but that's irrelevant; each article must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huon, for this explanatory information.Qexigator (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]