Help desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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 8[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation[edit]

I submitted an article and it was rejected as not notable enough. What gives? This guy is a titan in the car industry, a television personality and a radio broadcaster. I wanted to write this because I Googled him and discovered that he is not on wikipedia (I never did figure out his year of birth, which is what I was interest in). I sourced everything to reliable neutral sources. How do I get this article published?

You need to show that subject was the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of your sources either are not independent, or they provide only trivial coverage of the "... said subject" variety.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jewel delRio Villaflores[edit]

Good Day. I have written an article about a Philippine-based singer/songwriter and submitted it a week ago. However, my article was declined 3 times. I have followed the rules and requirements in writing this article and I can assure you that the subject is notable. I have attached online news articles about the subject. Unfortunately most of the write ups are printed and cannot be found online. What can I do to get this article published? Thank you so much.

Here is the link of my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jewel_delRio_Villaflores Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jewel delRio Villaflores Iambigbird (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that Facebook and Myspace are reliable sources? You can read more about reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Write ups not being online does not mean that they cannot be used as sources. You can find more information about citing sources at Wikipedia:References for beginners. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding uploading[edit]

Sir I uploaded 4 non-free images in indian soap opera. But the other user is editing and remove my uploads constantly. can i post images in other related aricle and change my summary. will it lead to copyright infringement?

This page is only for questions about the Articles for Creation process. Try the copyright questions page instead. Howicus (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi my article is rejected again. Can you tell me which sections of my page require more references so that Article will get approved.

How about, all of them? Most of your sections don't cite any sources whatsoever. Besides, with the exception of the Forbes India article, your sources are mostly primary sources. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable third-party sources, with primary sources used only for uncontroversial, non-promotional details. Huon (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maciej Tarnogrodzki[edit]

Hi,

I submitted article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Maciej_Tarnogrodzki which was reviewed initially by Sarah Stierch. There was a comment from Sarah Comment: Sadly there is only one reliable source here. Surely there must be more news coverage about the subject. Team/club websites do not count. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2013

The article was corrected and new reliable source was added from national newspaper Irish Mirror as requested. From that time article was rejected couple of times after submission by other reviewers( not Sarah as I think she wasn't available) but without any explanation why. The issue was fixed for Sarah submission.

Can you please advise as I'm stuck with this article.

Thank you

Ewelina

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maciej Tarnogrodzki

Your article has been created! It is now at Maciej Tarnogrodzki. Good work. Howicus (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will appreciate if you could advise what exactly to do and why the sources are not reliable? I need help to fix the page.Thanks

The vast majority of your sources are primary sources such as the official websites of films in which he acted, or they don't provide any significant coverage of Ulusoy, and if they do, that coverage doesn't make its way into your draft. For example, the Anatolian Eagles review is highly critical of the "uninspired ensemble acting", stating "the only actor trying to give a genuine performance" isn't Ulusoy. Interviews aren't quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be. Huon (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pharming Group N.V.[edit]

I'm new to this so, sorry if this is posted in the wrong place!

I wrote an article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pharming_Group_N.V. it was reviewed and rejected, I'm confused as to why.. the comments don't really make sense, at least I'm struggling to see the issues, could you help me by narrowing them down? Thank you :)

Sembleton (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right place. I agree that the decline reason provided by User:RadioFan does not seem to make a lot of sense. I suggest that the main issue with the submission is that it does not have references to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the group in detail. WP:VRS has more information about this. You may also find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) useful. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shall i have the privilage of knowing..What is the exact reason behind rejection of my article..

Wikipedia talk:Julien ngoy

The reasons that the article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julien Ngoy was declined, are explained at the top of the article submission. In particular, the submission only lists one source.

I would add that the wording of the submission is not very neutral, for example "Word has spread across Europe about his exciting talent and he is being regarded as one of the brightest upcoming talent in European football". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you please suggest why this article has be not accepted. It has been covered in the newspapers also. It is big brand in the eCommerce market in India. Hope you heed kind attention to the matter.

The source in The Hindu only mentions CCAvenue in passing - it is not significant coverage. The source in the Times of India does not appear to mention CCAvenue at all? The yourstory.in source seems to be a broken link. The India Digital Review piece appears to be based entirely on a press release. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've tried make a submission twice. first time it was unsuccessful because there were no verifiable references, which is fine and understandable. The second time it was unsuccessful for the same reason although there are several verifiable references included. I don't really understand what else I could include to make it so it is accepted. Could someone help me out?

Thanks in advance, Che

Che Blessed (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To prove notability, there need to be references proving that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just one or two is not enough. One of the strongest sources here is the Guardian piece. It is indeed very flattering about her, but has a total of only two paragraphs about her. For material of this length, more than one or two such sources are needed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Permyak salty ears[edit]

I just don't understand why this article has been rejected for a second time by someone calling himself Arctic Kangaroo. All I have done is to translate the Russian language page of Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пермяк_солёные_уши into English. The first time, OK, I didn't give a reference to the Russian page and the person who checked it maybe didn't realise that it was just a translation. But the second time I submitted it I included the address of the Russian page at the end of the article under references. What else do you want? I wrote that after the article had been accepted I would remove that reference and cross reference the two pages on the left hand side under Languages.

See, other Wikipedia pages should not be listed in the references at all, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Remove those references, and add more independent, reliable sources instead. Howicus (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a reliable source" - that's interesting. Then why all the fuss about "reliable sources"?

Because we want our facts to be verifiable and not just hearsay. If the Wikipedia article you want to cite has reliable third-party sources that support the relevant claim, you can re-use those. If it doesn't, how do you know its content is correct? People could modify one article to say what they want it to say, and then cite it as a "reliable source" in another - that's obviously circular. Huon (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi again. This is an add-on to my query of 5 July.

I want to emphasise it is not my intention to regard Wikipedia as a marketing tool. I am seeking a presence to establish the fact that 'Jane Emerssen' is an established author for those parties likely to be interested. I have chosen to write fiction under a pseudonym because my non-fiction work is still out there even though it is out of print, and I didn't want these books coming up on search engines because it muddies the waters - there is already another Judith Johnstone who writes on New Age topics.

I have copies of reviews relating to my non-fiction books sent to me by the Promotions Manager of How To Books, Regina Schinner, from 1993 up until 2005. These are a mix of journals and national newspapers in the UK. I can quote the dates and names of the publications if this helps with validation. Up until 2009 the various editions of my How To Books sold a total of 50,000+ copies and I am still in receipt of funds from Public Lending Rights and duplicating fees through the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society.

I have also been a member of the Society of Authors since December 1990 and as a professional personnel practitioner I qualified as a Member of the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD) in 1994. The Institute received its Royal Charter on 1 July 2000 becoming the CIPD and on 1 October 2003, full members were awarded charter status automatically. Although I have retired from full-time employment I remain a Chartered Member of the CIPD.

Does any of the above help me? If so, how do I go about incorporating it into my article?(Stoneraise (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you have better references, by all means add them. As it is, none of the references in the article are acceptable. Wikipedia requires independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of the article subject. Your own website is not independent of you, and neither is any site that's selling things, like Amazon. Howicus (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Wood Stabilization[edit]

I have written an article on wood stabilization which has been rejected twice as "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." The article is a science based record of wood stabilizing processes similar to any technical processes described in Wikipedia. I do not understand the comment that it reads like an essay. It is a hard line to walk, writing articles which do not overly plagiarize others works and yet not have it described as personal opinion.

I think this article would be useful to others who are looking for information on wood stabilizing. Thanks for any help I can get Edger66 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarizing is where you take exact words, or almost exact words. As you assume, Wikipedia cannot accept plagiarism. However, repeating ideas in different words is not plagiarism. That's what you should do - write others ideas in your own words, and cite them. Look at examples of featured articles to see appropriate style, tone, and organization. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Intelligent InSites[edit]

Hi, I'd like some feedback on an article I wrote that got rejected on June 15th. I've since made some changes on making the content more neutral, formatting, and on references. I'd like to make sure the article is good enough for approval once I resubmit it. Could an experienced editor please provide suggestions/feedback for my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intelligent InSites? Thanks! InSiteful13 (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the draft are still very short on references. The entire history section cites a single source, the "Environmental Monitoring" section none at all. One of your sources is press release (not considered reliable), another an interview with their CEO (not independent), yet others don't mention Intelligent InSites at all. Those sources should be removed. Huon (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]