Help desk
< December 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current help desk >

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.

December 31[edit]

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregory_Betts[edit]

I'm trying to fix and get approved an article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregory_Betts -- I've done some fixing up of it but it still hasn't been approved. Could someone help me with this?

Thanks.

Gary Barwin

Garybarwin (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Garybarwin! Thanks for working on this article. There were two problems: First, the review templates and comments had been removed from the article, leaving no way to resubmit. I have replaced them; now when you are ready you can just click on the blue "resubmit" button. Don't worry, all of that clutter will be removed automatically when the article is accepted.

The second problem is that the article needs some independent verification of statements in the article about Gregory Betts' notability as a poet and author. The best type of source for this are reviews or other articles about his work in publications with editors. There seem to be some available; here's one: http://canlit.ca/reviews/politically_unsignified ... and here's another: http://canlit.ca/reviews/method_and_material . I see that you are an author yourself, so you will know better than I where these may be found (blogs and social media sites don't count, though). Good luck. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here[edit]

Resolved

Please help us create an article for our company and its founder! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKCuisineGlobal (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MKCuisineGlobal, this is not the place to request someone else write an article for you. For that please visit WP:Requested articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there,

This is my first submission into Wikipedia and I am not exactly sure what I am doing wrong, could you possibly help?

Thanks Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccormack555555 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three of your references 404 out, meaning they're dead links. The last one is tied to the subject as it's his employer. We need multiple third-party sources that discuss him at length and don't have any connection to the subject. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here[edit]

Resolved

– No action that WP can take

well charlies angles tv show delete from facebook any time soon because its stuck on my facebook page and there noting I can do about it I don't think it should be on facebook at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warheadsoupersourcandy (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Warheadsoupersourcandy. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia and not Facebook. We have no authority to do anything with respect to what is on your facebook page. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Le test des 3 "D" de l'antisémitisme[edit]

HI THIS IS A TRADUCTION OF A OTHER ARTICLE 3D TEST OF ANTISEMITSM AND I WANT TO LEARN HOW TO PUT IT WHIT HIM.

Hello! This doesn't appear to be from the French Wikipedia. If it's an article from another published source, it may be copyright, in which case Wikipedia can't accept it, even in translation. If it's an article that you have written yourself, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Translators available. However, even if it's changed to English, there is no guarantee that it will be accepted as a suitable topic, since Wikipedia articles can't contain opinions or promote a point of view. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reel Women[edit]

Dear reviewers: This article was declined as needing more extensive reliable sources, for having a Youtube video among the sources, and for lack of inline citations. This is not my article, but I rescued it from G13 deletion because there were many publications which discussed it. Although I don't believe that the presence of a Youtube video is a reason for declining as long as facts in the article don't depend on it, I have moved it to the "External links" section. I have added some new sources. Since this is not a biography, I believe that it is not necessary for them to be formatted and in the form of citations in order for the article to be accepted. Am I correct about this? Are the extra references (at the bottom of the list) enough? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: Might it, you know, be a good idea to ask the reviewer to clarify on their talk page rather than skulk around the back rooms trying to get the review overturned in a "If Dad says no, ask Mom" action? WP:YOUTUBE is quite clear that YouTube is at best, valid for external links. As I said in the review most of the references mention Reel Women in a very trivial maner. There are a few that appear to cover it in depth. The submission depends heavily on the Austin Chronicle references which is a local independent paper, so the submission is opened to non-NPOV issues. You're thinking only of criterion 4 of WP:MINREF, which convienently overlooks the first 3 criteria. Leaving the "references" in a bulk listing at the end makes them highly vulnerable to linkrot. If I remember my experience as a New Page Patroller, one of the warning flags is a lack of any inline reference tags or a reflist block. It doesn't make sense for us to promote the article out of the protection of AfC space and feed it to the zealous wolves at large, does it? Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hasteur: I posted here because this is where the template says to post. This is the main help page for Afc, not a back room; as an Afc reviewer I assumed that you would have it on your watchlist. Your decline reasons were quite clear; I just disagreed with them. (Since the article isn't controversial and contains no quotations or information about living people, the guidelines specifically say that inline citations aren't required for acceptance and that reference formatting is not a reason to decline), and I would prefer another opinion. If the article is moved to mainspace, you can nominate it for Afd and I will happily accept the verdict. If not, I will assume that all of the other reviewers agree with you about the notability issue and I will go on to something else. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: I can only surmise by your response, that you have forgotten the central tenants of dispute resolution, specifically Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party, which encourages you to come to the other editor to seek clarification before appealing to other editors. I would have expected that with the scrutiny being directed our direction that we'd want to try and follow the broader rules than try using the walled garden house rules of AfC. Furthermore, I only included the other problems because while they're not enough to outright fail a review, when taken with other problems it tips the scales over. If you had paid attention to the clarifiying text in MINREF it says that while the absolute minimum is your examples, most exceed that ruberic. I would have thought that if we were trying to get articles to a point where they do not rock the boat in mainspace, we would want to match the referencing as well.

I did not intend to create a dispute on the help page, but since you insist, my reason for not bringing this up on your talk page can be found HERE. I will not be working on this article any more, or submitting it, so there should be no need for a dispute about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was wondering if I could get some tips on how I might modify the following article so that it gets approved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Z_Girls

We are such a new organization that there aren't a lot of sources to link to, however we believe we belong on Wikipedia not for advertising purposes at all, simply to educate people about what we do and the impact we make on communities.

I look forward to hearing what changes I can make to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.231.239 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 65.130.231.239! Well, first, the article should make the status of the organization clear. Is this a company which charges people to take courses, it is it a non-profit organization, a charity, a government subsidized program...? The article doesn't say. Also, the article should be written in a neutral, factual tone, with no mention of opinions or aspirations. All external links should be removed from the body of the article; these are considered promotional. You will also need more references to independent press, magazine or book coverage about Z Girls (press releases written by the organization don't count). If the organization is too new to have these, that's a reason not to have an article in an encyclopedia about it yet. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]