Help desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24[edit]

Rejection of "St Martins Youth Arts Centre" (created by Sheldon Kepler)[edit]

Could you please tell me why Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St Martins Youth Arts Centre was rejected? Sheldon Kepler (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. One of the references is the business register entry (that's not significant coverage), and the rest is the organization's own website, a primary source. Establish notability requires sources independent of the article's subject. Huon (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Welcome Back, Brotter[edit]

Patrick 69.125.10.131 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted It could still do with better sources, for example secondary sources not affiliated with Boston University. Huon (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

is there anything to be done or should the Dead Nedry page just be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.36.166 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I currently do not see which of the notability criteria for musicians Dead Nedry is supposed to satisfy, and I'm not sure whether the Encyclopedia Metallica counts as a reliable source. Unless notability can be established by showing significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think there is much to be done. Huon (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ongoing...
at User talk:AndrewN/Archives/2012/May#Question about article for submission

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System[edit]

The lead text is a copyvio - it is practically identical to the first paragraph here. I don't know how to deal with this as I have no experience of the system here. Roger (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a copyright lawyer and cannot tell whether that text was sufficiently different from the original not to run afoul of copyright - the source is obvious, but it had been reworded a little. For now I have reworded it some more; this should now be ok. If you still consider it a copyright violation, I'd suggest blanking the paragraph and leaving a comment about the reasons for the blanking. Huon (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reasons for disapproval of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CBRNe World (Magazine)[edit]

I've been instructed to post a question here to find out why my article was not approved. Can anyone explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugturn33 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article has a bunch of references, the first few that I checked were not reliable secondary sources. Significant coverage in such sources is required to establish a topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, you should cite your sources using footnotes so readers can verify whether a certain statement is indeed backed up by the references. For example, I couldn't find a source for the OPCW criticism, and the only OPCW-related source I did find didn't mention the magazine at all (it was also a primary source, published by OPCW itself). Huon (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

Thank you for your comments. I suspected the problem lay with hte references and I have filtered these, retaining what i would deem to be reliable sources. the OPCW reference refers to the CBRNe World convergence, at which the director general gave the keynote address. I refer you to http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-director-general-addresses-global-cbrne-conference/ What do you make of my revisions, and what further suggestions do you have for my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugturn33 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For info, editor has spammed a ton of articles with links to the magazine, contributions on the face of it appear to be entirely promotional for this magazine. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is of course not fond of this kind of promotional linkspam, and I believe all instances have been removed. Regarding your article, it still reads like an advertisement ("unprecedented influence in the military and civil defence industry"?), uses weasel words ("noted for his candid editorial style" - noted by whom?), does not use inline citations or footnotes (I'd have to do some major searching to find out which, if any, references support the above statements), uses primary sources (such as the OPCW source, and actually most others as well), and uses sources that do not even mention the article subject (again, such as the OPCW source) or provide no more than a trivial mention that cannot serve as a basis for the article's contet (for example the European Commission's Event website, which mentions the name "CBRNe World" without any context or elaboration). If these are the best sources to be found, the topic does not appear notable enough for its own article. Huon (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelson M. Cooke[edit]

Concerning this article: The person's name shows about 15 books listed at the Library of congress, from 1942 up to 1992. Several of those books are mentioned within the article. Why wouldn't you regard that as notable? --87.144.240.178 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because books written by Cooke are primary sources. Notability is established by significant coverage in secondary sources: Other people writing about Cooke or discussing his work. Huon (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you regard it as primary source, if one of those books has four or seven releases at McGraw-Hill? I would regard this book relyable with high demand through readers. Cook might show unnotable, if it were 15 different books, each with one release in a small book-shop, but this? --87.144.240.178 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a primary source, though independent reviews of such high-demand books are likely to exist. The reviews would be secondary sources. Huon (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction[edit]

I am confused about sandboxes. I believe I have a sandbox (Creating User:D102653A/sandbox) where I can work on revising and recrafting my article, etc. However, on this page it also reads: When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead. I don’t get it. What I’d like to do is: 1. Get on my sandbox, do some revising, and save that work as I would a word doc on my computer. 2. 2. Move on to some other task, and then come back to my sandbox later to continue revising. Why can’t I just save the work on my sandbox and be able to come back later and continue my work?

Also, I recall seeing somewhere about how a CONTENTS box is automatically created … but I can’t find that information now. Do you know where I can find it?

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is a wiki page like any other; what makes it your sandbox is its name (User:D102653A/sandbox is a sub-page of your user page) and the template {{User sandbox}} which creates a hatnote declaring the page your sandbox. The note about your changes immediately becoming visible is a standard note that appears whenever you edit any page at all; the part about "editing your Sandbox instead" doesn't take into account that you are already editing your sandbox; you can safely disregard it. The sandbox indeed behaves just as you want it to, and you can edit it, save the changes, and later return to the sandbox to edit it some more. Other people will be able to see your sandbox and your edits to it (once you save them), and they could edit it, but they usually won't do so unless invited or unless there's some serious breach of policy going on, like a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca[edit]

Hello, I recently recieved notification that my references for my new page, linked below, did not show the notability of the subject. I now know that references to her company's website are frowned upon and am finding the information from other more reliable sources. However, on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page it says that all press releases are unreliable/non-notable sources. Is this true even if the press release is not given by the prior or prior to any affiliation with the person? In particular, I am referring to a press release given by Comerica that talks about Nina Vaca being appointed to the Board of Directors. If this is not considered notable or reliable, I will look for another notable source with the announcement. Thank you for your help!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are indeed not considered reliable secondary sources. Firstly, they are primary sources (the authors of a press release are are usually affiliated with one of the actors in the event mentioned, in your example with the company to whose Board Vaca was appointed), and secondly, a company's press releases rarely have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Wikipedia requires of reliable sources. If you can find a secondary source, that would indeed be much preferable. Huon (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I will look for an alternative secondary source. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magnetic Eye Records[edit]

I recently wrote an article on Magnetic Eye Records that was denied. why was it declined for publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blksn (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blksn, your article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magnetic Eye Records was declined because the sources you referenced do not indicate the notability of the topic. It is a similar issue to the one that I had. Your sources are primary sources and thus do not indicate notability. If you can reference reliable sources written by third party trusted authors (secondary sources), then your article will have a better chance of being published. In addition, you mention accepting submission requests within the article. The article is intended to be purely factual and not used as an advertizing tool; it needs to be unbiased. The other big thing that I noticed was that you used not inline citations and thus it is very difficult to tell what information is verifiable and what information is not. Best of luck with your article! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Picturepark Digital Asset Management Software[edit]

I understand the concept of something not being notable, but that test seems to be applied without much consistency in some cases. For example:

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

What is so notable about this company? They are in the very same industry as Picturepark, and they even write their entry like it's paid advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_(software)

Here they talk about their product using the same text they make available on their website.

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

Here's another similar vendor that's smaller than Picturepark, and far less relevant in the market. The "sources" they cite are websites they own, and links from press release announcements. If that's all that's required, please let me know if the following are acceptable:

http://www.cmswire.com/cms/digital-asset-management/picturepark-connects-dam-solution-to-sharepoint-015633.php http://www.cmswire.com/cms/digital-asset-management/dropbox-connector-for-picturepark-released-015294.php http://www.cmswire.com/cms/digital-asset-management/dam-lowdown-picturepark-connects-to-sharepoint-a-dam-primer-and-a-webinar-015743.php http://www.cmswire.com/news/topic/picturepark http://idm.net.au/blog/009049-picturepark-launches-sharepoint-dam http://www.wan-ifra.org/articles/2012/05/15/sharepoint-digital-asset-management-layer-from-picturepark http://www.wan-ifra.org/articles/2012/04/26/picturepark-to-present-at-woodwing-next-wave-tour-in-new-york-and-los-angeles http://digitalassetmanagementnews.org/vendors/picturepark-integrates-with-sharepoint/ http://digitalassetmanagementnews.org/vendors/picturepark-integrates-with-dropbox/ http://enterprise.it-enquirer.com/2012/05/15/sharepoint-gets-picturepark-dam-layer/ http://enterprise.it-enquirer.com/2012/04/27/picturepark-adds-dropbox-capability/ http://www.fair-news.de/pressemitteilung-585048.html http://damfoundation.org/press/picturepark-announces-dropbox-integration/ http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/Digital-Asset-Management-Software-syndicates-files-for-secure-distribution-614039

These articles were all posted from websites that are considered to be leading sources of news for the Digital Asset Management industry. Picturepark *is* a reputable vendor that has been in business for more than a decade.

Please help me understand what makes these other two digital asset management vendors worthy of a Wikipedia article while Picturepark is not. If they have provided you with some special information that you require, I assure you can provide the very same (or more) for Picturepark. I was just trying to present this listing in an understated, unbiased manner that supported the non-commercial quality and focus of Wikipedia.

I don't mean to me problematic, but I'm a big believer in fairness and equity.

Thank you for helping me better understand this!

I've looked over the articles you mentioned... Each one does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, and has been tagged for deletion by an Administrator. I will look over your article more thoroughly in a few moments, but right now, the article does not appear to be notable for inclusion. AndrewN ^talk 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction[edit]

I want to include my subject's logo in my article (see The Haskell Company article for reference). • How do I upload this image so I can place it in my article? • Where do I place the logo in my article? • Also, will a CONTENTS box appear automatically in my article (my article has 4 sections plus an introduction).

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you spend your time getting your article suitable for Wikipedia, before adding 'bells and whistles'. Sionk (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I entirely agree with Sionk about the bells and whistles and the necessary improvements (in particular the non-encyclopedic tone the reviewer mentioned), I'll nevertheless answer your questions: A content box will indeed appear automatically when you have sufficiently many sections; however, your section headings currently do not follow standard Wikipedia styles and therefore will not be interpreted as separate sections by the automatism that produces the contents box. I'll fix that in a minute; you can then have a look at my changes to your draft and their effects. General information on section headingss can be found at WP:HEADINGS.

You can upload an image via Special:Upload; more detailed help is available at WP:Uploading images. But since the logo will be copyrighted and Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires that non-free images be used in at least one article (and drafts do not count), uploading should wait until the article has been accepted. Otherwise the image will likely be deleted on copyright grounds.

Once you have uploaded an image, you can add it to the article by using code like this:

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Image description]]

That will produce a thumbnail on the left of the text. The Haskell Company uses an infobox to display the logo (and other standard company information); help on infoboxes is available at Help:Infobox, and you can have a look at the Haskell page's code that produces the infobox for an example in action (it's the part that starts with "{{Infobox company" and ends with "|homepage = [http://www.haskell.com/ www.haskell.com]|}}"). One word of warning, though: Infoboxes are tricky, and it's easy to accidentally break one so that the entire article becomes unreadable. Use the preview to make sure your edits have the intended effect. Huon (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction[edit]

Thank you, Huon, for fixing the section headings in my draft. I see how correctly formatting the headings "automatically" creates a content box. Regarding the other items from my previous inquiry, I'll worry about the subject's logo later on. I've rewritten my article so that—at least in my estimation and those of the people I've shared it with—it seems to have the desired encyclopedic tone and style. I will resubmit my article tomorrow and see where we go from there.

Thank you,

Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]