Help desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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 12[edit]

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

hello i am asking that this page be created Wikinerd1200 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already created the King kredible article in mainspace. I'm not convinced this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, but I'll keep an eye on it and see how things pan out. — sparklism ^hey! 08:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to move the article back into AfC space as soon as possible. In its current form it gives no indication of why it might pass the notability guidelines for musicians, since the artist is unsigned and has not generated any major, independent news coverage, such as an article in Rolling Stone. In its current form, it has a high risk of being speedy deleted due to a lack of indicated importance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vedic astrology First tell me why my article was declined Please guide me which pages i need to create in wikipedia. I want to publish an article on wikipedia about vedic astrology but i don't know to publish this article what i need to do. I wrote this article by myself. So please help me to publish my article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrologynewsorg (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to create any pages in Wikipedia. The article about this topic is at Hindu astrology. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Arthur notes, and as the alert at the top of your draft indicates, the article was turned down because we already have an existing article on the topic. Wikipedia does not maintain different articles by different people on the same topic. If there are issues you think should be covered, which are not currently covered at Hindu astrology, please contribute to the existing article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left hand, meet right hand: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bioscale[edit]

I addressed the issue the original reviewer had with the article (User talk:Techatology#Decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bioscale), but RadioFan claimed "With the exception of the Harvard Business Review and EPA the remainder of the references appear to be little more than reprints of company press releases". The Boston Globe, a newspaper with a 240k daily circulation, and the other independent sources apparently aren't good enough. What does it take? Two tablets? 70.79.73.253 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this submission looks to demonstrate notability sufficiently. I'd welcome a second (third?) opinion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline the article if resubmitted in its current state. It only says what the company does, and where it got its money from. All companies make things, and they all need to be funded from somewhere, so nothing in the article indicates any particular importance for an encyclopedia article.

Wikipedia has a large, and ever increasing problem, with people trying to use it as an advertising service for their company. Therefore, the notability guidelines for companies are quite strict, and although the sources you have given are reliable, they are not necessarily independent. A particular problem with press releases is that papers and journals generally print any press release without comment - the source has not decided that the corporation is in any way special or worthy of note by doing so. Therefore, press releases are generally unsuitable. The best kind of source is one that reports about the company, but includes some sort of criticism in it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you making a big assumption here and veering off into OR-land? I find it difficult to believe that the Globe, recipient of 21 Pulitzer Prizes, or DC Denison (described here as an "Assistant Business Editor") stoop to publishing press releases. Lori Valigra, the Boston Business Journal writer, and Xconomy's Ryan McBride seem to have pretty solid journalism credentials as well. 70.79.73.253 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong about a news outlet printing press releases, so I don't understand what your concern is. A good way of deciding whether a source is independent is to see if it contains any criticism. Most reviews of a product or a service do at least try and mention any issues, even if they're minor and the review overall is favourable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong if the outlet prints them labeled as press releases. You're claiming something entirely different: that PR is being published under the bylines of reputable reporters.^{[citation needed]} Also, these aren't reviews, but news articles. Why would you question reporting about the opening of a facility or a new round of fundraising because of a lack of negative aspects? Would you also dismiss an article about a fatal accident because it wasn't balanced by positive reporting? 70.79.73.253 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given advice, but it's not the advice you want to hear. A quick browse through your contributions here however reveals you have been paid to edit the article, which explains why you are so enthusiastic to get it submitted. You have a conflict of interest and as such as I have nominated your submission for speedy deletion as spam / advertising. I think our conversation is now done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi - why I can't put Polish wiki article about company as a source to english article about the same Comapny? My article was declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackisback1912 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been tagged for speedy deletion as it is a copyright infringement of another site. Wikipedia articles must comply with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, which basically means you cannot simply reuse information from another site without explicitly authorising that the information may be freely used and commercially resold. Please do not recreate it in this form. Other wikis are never acceptable as a reliable source, unfortunately. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Osborne (writer)[edit]

Hi,

Can you tell me the exact sources that are deemed unreliable (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Osborne (writer) Also, if I cannot find a source for a piece of infomation can it still be submitted? As I have seen articles on wiki that are not always referenced.

Thanks

Dan

Daniel Emmerson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that about half of your sources are unreliable by our standards, namely IMDB, doublecluck.com and the Historical Novel Society. That's because these sites are either based on content added by random members or because they're affiliated with the subject. While lots of Wikipedia articles are either not referenced at all, or not very thoroughly, we have a policy about articles on living persons that demands special care with regards to reliable sources for such biographies. That aside, we need independent, secondary sources to determine a subject's notability. Not all writers are considered notable by Wikipedia standards, but in-depth coverage by reliable sources such as magazines and news reports may be a sign of notability. So you might want to look for more of those sources. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please, editor Techatology, be more specific on what needs explicit links or references to verify Cathy Luchetti's attributes, actions, accomplishments, what have you. I have revisted the article and find nothing--at least nothing obvious--that isn't substantiated by reference to significant sources. Are you claiming the LA and NY Times aren't significant sources? Bwisok (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was referring to the fact that the Works section and the Honors section have no inline citations in them at all. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Rand (author)[edit]

Hi! I revised my article on Peter Rand on May 23rd in accordance with your suggestions, but I have not received any notice that it is being reconsidered. How can I get this article published at this point? Thanks! Ryau01 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Ryau01[reply]

First, I fixed the link. Second, any article requires reliable, independent references to establish the notability of the article's subject. Right now you article does not have those. Take a look at the link in my last sentence for more info. Howicus (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Keith_N._Schoville[edit]

Hello,

I am working on the page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Keith_N._Schoville. Several editors have flagged it as "Advertisements masquerading as articles" and needing to be more neutral in tone. One editor with the Online Chat said that it was too "friendly".

The subject in question is an academic and I have attempted to impartially list their academic works and to establish notability. Can you provide some concrete suggestions for ways to make it less friendly and to address the editors findings? I have studied the Wikipedia style suggestions with some care but it is not clear to me what is wrong or how to improve it.

Thank you! Bruce Kissinger (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick initial impression:

"Dr. Keith Norman Schoville (March 3, 1928) was born in Soldiers Grove Wisconsin." is not a WP:Lead section, that's just chronologically the first thing that happened in his life. A Lead is more like: John Smith (1902-1941) is a Northern Irish adventurer and poet known for his anthology Poems I wrote and for his 1933 discovery of the Amazonia Foo tribe. The Lead should give a basic who/what/why/when/where that full encapsulates the high points of why we should bother reading about this person.
Wikipedia doesn't generally call people "Mr." or "Dr.". It is of course key to mention he has a PhD, and to give his full name (Keith Norman Schoville) in the first line, but thereafter he should be "Schoville", not "Dr. Schoville" as his title is a given and its use implies a biased deference.
This sentence is problematic: According to one source[9], "These talks, and a subsequent set of talks entitled the “I Dissent” series, serve as a model for ways in which Christian faculty can engage the ideas and structures of the university today". First off in this context you really should mention the source by name, since it's some other religious organisation so has its own agenda. Secondly, if this is a group that would be expected to agree with him, is their praise that Notable? Now, if this org or whatever member of it who said this is an important person, then it might be worth saying John Smith, head of the 3-million strong Fooian Church, said that Schoville's work "has had an extraordinary impact on my ministry" The way it's currently written (quote of unclear speaker on a site of a like-minded group), it's not really any better than "Acme Corporation says that Acme's New Designs Division is the most innovative and spectacular design shop on Earth." It just comes across as an attempt to shoehorn in compliments for no real educational purpose.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am wondering how one Wikipedia master editor can say "Really, really good progress. Just looking at some of the comments, you've done a lot to improve this article. Just one thing: the "Early Life" section cites no sources. Other than that, stellar article" to another saying "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia" all in two days time? I am at a crossroads right now to even give this site any more time if this is the way people will be jerked around by some. Thank you to the helpful and considerate on here so far. 8:11pm CT, 12 July 2013. PArnold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Al_Schema

Unfortunately I tend to agree with the "notability not established" camp, and I expect TheOneSean didn't check the sources in sufficient detail when he found that one section didn't cite any sources at all.

To establish someone's notability we need to show that the person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him. Many of your sources are not independent (such as his own Alderman web page or articles he co-authored), many others don't mention him at all or only in passing. There are also concerns about the sources' reliability, but when the sources don't say what they're cited for it doesn't really matter whether or not they're reliable. For example, the "Crystal Cave" source [1] doesn't mention Schema at all and thus cannot confirm that Schema has taken up a project at that cave. Huon (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]