Help desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 1 >

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.

September 30[edit]

Sydney King[edit]

Hi there, I am just more than a lttle mystified as to why this brief reference Wiki article on my husband's uncle actor Sydney King has been refused for inclusion. It is certainly not a 'copy' from Theatricalia as that was information inputted by my husband on their site. Most internet sites are showing a wrong date and place of birth for Sydney King hence the proposed Wiki article with correct information. Perhaps you would be kind enough to review your decision.

Kind regards

Heidi Howell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.13.18 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable published sources, and the content put up by your husband on Theatricalia probably did not receive editorial oversight, which would mean that it's not reliable. Neither is IMDb (again for a lack of editorial oversight), and while AllMovie may be a little better in that regard, neither provides any biographical details on King anyway.

Secondly, the draft's biographical content was the same as that on Theatricalia, and it seems reasonable to believe they had it first. Thus it's copyrighted, and unless Theatricalia's Open Database License is compatible with Wikipedia's Creative Commons License (I am not a lawyer and have no idea whether it is), it's unsuitable for Wikipedia. If the copyright is held by your husband and not by Theatricalia, he could himself release it under the Creative Commons License and send evidence of that release to Wikipedia at "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for an example release form); however, even if the copyright problems were resolved in this manner, the draft on King would still have to be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject; in fact, significant coverage in such sources is required to show King is notable enough for an article. It might therefore be easier to not bother with that rather short text but instead to first find reliable sources about King, such as newspaper coverage or textbooks on 1930s to 1950s British film, and to write a new draft based on those sources.

You may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about close relatives is discouraged.

Finally, Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth: If sources that should be reliable get King's birthdate wrong and no sources present the correct date, Wikipedia will still report what the sources say even though you know it to be wrong. That can be frustrating, but it's Wikipedia's safeguard against people claiming to know something they don't - if I also made claims about King's birthdate that differed from yours, how should our readers tell who is right? Huon (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:BoyFromNorthernBritain/sandbox[edit]

Hi there,

I recently put forward my sandbox article for publishing on Wikipedia, but realise that I did not give it a new title before doing so. The article is on the tour operator 'HAGGiS Adventures' and this was the intended heading.

I my Request Review box it says "Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.". I'm presuming this is the issue I have caused but I wasn't sure if I required to do anything. When I tried to 'move' the article to a different name I as told the title was on the 'blacklist' but I don't know what this means!

Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can provide, Regards, Peter. BoyFromNorthernBritain (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HAGGiS Adventures by Callanecc. I'm not sure what caused the blacklist problem, but it seems to be resolved as well. Huon (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Permit To Work[edit]

Could someone please advise why this article doesn't comply. The only feedback was "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information." It is very hard to improve if the reviewer does not state in what way an AfC doesn't comply with 'What Wikipedia is not'. Thanks. 124.148.122.112 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an essay. What comes closest to an article text is entirely unsourced, and many of the sources provided do not even mention the article's topic. There seems to be a heavy dose of original research. Huon (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Articles_for_creation/Michael_Northcott[edit]

I've altered this post and resubmitted about four weeks ago, and suspect that this review may have gotten dropped somewhere along the way. Would it be possible for someone to give this a new look and approve? There are quite a number of similar accepted Wikipedia articles which are biographies of living persons of a similar career profile (i.e. theologians / moral philosophers, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_O'Donovan) with similar levels of attribution, but I'm happy to enhance this further if that is absolutely necessary for the approval process. Thanks very much for assistance -

Hi,

It appears that your references to the facts about where he was and with whom are there. But we have no references showing that anyone has noticed him or his work. That is what we need to prove notability. We also need references to any personal information put forth in your article. -- :- ) Don 18:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer Don - I removed a rather large section detailing reviews of Northcott's books, will this suffice for noticeability? As for personal information, some of this is based on an interview I did with Northcott, as the web sources which might have detailed this have since been deprecated (i.e. several UK-based online journalism sources). Should I just remove these details and add them back into the article later as I am able to locate secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidwellj (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added reviews back in case this satisfies notability. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidwellj (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected article on Siegfried Placzek[edit]

I am hoping to find out why my article on Siegfried Placzek was rejected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amycello) Most of the information came from his obituary in the New York Times of March 9, 1946 and additional information from family tree research at Ancestry.com (he was my grandfather.) I also have a photograph which I can add.

Thank you, Amy Camus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.36.126 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a link to the obituary in the New York Times so others can verify the information. This is done by in line citations or references. I added sections to your article, including a References section. You may want to look over WP:REFB to see how it can be done. Since you only have one, it should not be a great task. Thanks for your efforts. -- :- ) Don 18:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a link, while certainly helpful, is not strictly necessary. What's necessary is sufficient information in the article to allow our readers to identify the source. Furthermore, your family tree research may be original research, I don't know whether ancestry.com is a reliable source (and I doubt it), and the obituary probably didn't cover Placzek's bibliography (which, by the way, is full of typos - I could probably fix most of them without a source, but without a source we shouldn't have the bibliography in the first place). Huon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Help me someone! This is my first article that I am creating, and I cannot get my references cited correctly. It is horrible! If anyone could do this for me, I would appreciate it so much! I have asked before and users have sent me the link as to how to cite references, but that didn't help! Someone needs to actually do the references. Thanks, and here's the info:

Article Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fay_Wolf

Here are some video sources for Fay Wolf:

-http://vimeo.com/16767584 -http://www.metacafe.com/videos_about/fay_wolf/ -http://www.hulu.com/search?query=fay+wolf&st=0&fs=

She has and IMDb page, there are more weak links on the actual page, see what you can do and contribute to Wikipedia!

-Mallen22 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, getting links to work can be tricky as there are many different ways to do them. I think I have fixed what you have, and hope that it is what you want. However, none of these can serve as a references except to the fact that she did one of the listed videos. We need references to verify any information put forth in you article, such as appeared in many television shows, She is a member of a band called New Order, She attended the Boston University School for the Arts, etc. Thank for you efforts. -- :- ) Don 18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And those references must be reliable published sources. We need to show she has received significant coverage in such sources that are independent of her, such as newspaper articles, to establish she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. IMDb, for example, usually isn't considered reliable because there's too little editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been told that my contribution is "written like an advertisement", which I respectfully resent considering I spent 2 months including extensive details analysis of the do's and don'ts, rules, etc, and have three 4inch thick folder just with guidelines from this site. Point is, Specifics were not provided as to what areas seem to Appear--like an advertisment as I am not advertising. How is one to move to edit wihtout clear communicaiton. Moreover, the reference section of my contribution is not completed; has taken up 3 weeks of time alone trying to develop, getting the section in order in accordance with the guidlens which are not clear to follow. I do have to edit this format of each line, but that will not satisfy getting the reference section correct in order to move to connection to the content. Bottom line first issue I need help with is, the reference of 'advertisement' and exactly what area in my article comes across that way. Many, Many thanksSpirit2heart (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I'm reading your submission, I'm not seeing the peacockness in it. I've read much worse. I have notified the reviewer and asked for some elaboration. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAIR FAQIRAN VILLAGE JHELUM PK