Help desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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 13[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dangerous Dog Insurance[edit]

[[1]]

I don't see anything in the article that contains links to any company that offers this insurance. Maybe you believe that including the name of some companies that don't "blacklist" is the same as making a reference to these companies. But it is a fact that these companies don't blacklist. If consumers are looking for a company that doesn't blacklist, then the information in the article is merely informative as to this fact.

This is similar to Apple, Inc. article in some ways. There can be no article about Apple, Inc or about Microsoft, for example, that does not promote Apple, Inc. or Microsoft. Therefore, it seems that your decision to decline this article is not based in the standards established by wikipedia.

Also, this article has nearly no relation to Breed-Specific Legislation. The article specifically states that it should not be confused with that BSL article. This article is about states and insurance companies that don't have Breed-Specific Legislation and don't have blacklists. This article is about insurance for people who own dogs which is much broader subject that appeals to a much larger population than "breed-specific legislation". Breed-Specific legislation is not in every state and not every person who owns a dog is subject to breed-specific legislation.

Please, tell me which section that can be removed that will result in the submission being approved and please, reconsider your declination with the article written as is. Chasehunter1 (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly promotional. If the repeated use of "Dangerous Dog Insurance®" (in boldface) were not an obvious clue, the fact that you named an article "about states and insurance companies that don't have Breed-Specific Legislation" after a registered trademark would be a dead giveaway. Many of the sources, especially the heavily-used sources, are not reliable or not independent. The most egregious example is "Owner of the Dangerous Dog Insurance® trademark" - how are our readers supposed to verify that? And if they could, it still would not be an independent source.

The claim that an article about Apple or Microsoft cannot help but promote the companies is absurd. Wikipedia articles on companies should report what reliable third-party sources have to say about the subject. Our Apple and Microsoft articles do so. This one doesn't. It also violates WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:SYN and various other policies and guidelines. To become a valid article, it would have to be rewritten entirely, either focusing on the trademark and summarizing what reliable third-party sources had to say about it, or focusing on, say, "Dog insurance in the United States", with a neutral title and, again, reliable third-party sources that cover the topic. Huon (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

All links submitted are independent sources such as interviews. No self published sources cited in the declined submissionWikipeod (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The references are, in order:

An image without accompanying text. The artist's images are not independent sources.
A website which describes its biography of the artist thus: The following is from the artist. Obviously not an independent source.
A website that hosts artists' profiles for $35. Not a reliable source.
An [ article in a local paper]. This might be a reliable third-party source, but on its own it's not enough to establish the artist's notability.
A Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source.
A broken link to Amazon, presumably to a book on artists. The book might be a reliable source, but Amazon is not. I couldn't identify the book itself.
The same local newspaper article again.

So in grand total there's a single reliable, independent source, and that's only a local newspaper. That's not enough to establish that the subject is notable. Huon (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:SIEntomology/sandbox[edit]

How can we request a specific page name (that is incorporated into the URL? It's a little unclear from the instructions about how to do this and at what stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIEntomology (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer will move the draft to an appropriate title when it's accepted, but currently it's entirely based on primary sources such as the organization's own website. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. Thus we cannot accept the draft in its present state.

On an unrelated note, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about an organization you're affiliated with is discouraged.

Furthermore, your username may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it's the name of a group and implies shared use. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, not for organizations. You may want to have your username changed or you might be blocked from editing. Huon (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor - Need Help[edit]

I am a new editor and need help to get an article posted. I am not sure why my sources are not valid and it gets rejected. I have major publications NPR, New York Times, Pitchfork Media, etc that are referenced and sourced for my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Delicate_Steve#Positive_Force_.282012.29

If anyone can lend a hand, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janochaj (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the problems the reviewer saw. While the draft heavily cites primary sources such as the record label or Amazon on the Kindle ad, and while several sources mention Delicate Steve only in passing, I'd say there's enough reliable third-party coverage to establish his notability. You've already asked LionMans Account; maybe he can clarify why he thought the sources insufficient. Huon (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glen Campbell American Treasure[edit]

I can rewrite the article to be more neutral, but do I also need more references than the current ones (the 2 articles from theseconddisc.com are independent) to get approval? Thanks! Lumdeloo (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theseconddisc.com may be independent, but it's a self-published blog without any editorial oversight - it's not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. You'd need reviews in newspapers or reputable music magazines to establish that this album is notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood. Thanks Huon! Lumdeloo (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Won't Upload on Don Albinson Page[edit]

regarding:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Albinson

I successfully uploaded two pictures to this page, but the third one won't upload: File:Albi Fixtures 3 cropped 042313.jpg / Albi Stack Chair designed by Don Albinson for Fixture

I emailed the permissions I had to use the photo a few days ago. It only took a couple days for the first two images to upload. Why is this one taking so much longer? Please advise.

Kx.maniphest.destiny (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have uploaded a third image named File:Albi Stacking Chair Designed by Don Albinson for Fixtures.jpg. For all I can tell you never uploaded File:Albi Fixtures 3 cropped 042313.jpg; we don't have a file of that title, and we never had. Huon (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bristol Law Journal[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bristol_Law_Journal The page said that the article not currently submitted for review (even though it was already submitted for review yesterday), then when I clicked on the submit button, now there are two confirmation yellow box that the article is awaiting review at the bottom of the page. What should I do? Also there were issues with the first version of the article which I have now rectified them. Could you let me know if this is now acceptable, and if not, what should I do next? Thanks. Naismail (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "currently not submitted" message is an artefact that should soon be removed by a bot. As long as there's a "Review waiting" message, the draft is submitted for review. I cleaned that up manually. However, I agree with the comment C.Fred left on the draft: Without reliable sources that are independent of the subject we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon. What are the steps to remedy the problem with the draft which is apparently not an independent source? I have made reference to the Journal which is currently hosted on two independent and reputable academic websites which are Academia.edu and Mendeley. Naismail (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The steps would be to add reliable sources that aren't associated with the journal itself, such as newspaper articles about it or third-party journals reporting on the Bristol Law Journal. Huon (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but to clarify again, Academia.edu and Mendeley are already third party websites referring to the Journal. Plus, it would be almost impossible to get third party journals quoting us as this is only our first publication and it is only being distributed in the UK.Naismail (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look third-party to me. Rather, both look like user profiles added by the journal's editors themselves. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about your own journal is discouraged. Huon (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:DocFido/sandbox[edit]

Hello,

I have a question. My article is in my sandbox, and it's got a template indicating that it's waiting to be reviewed, it's been 9 or ten days, but here's my question: I can never find my article in any of the "waiting" or "Pending" lists of articles for creation, so I wonder if I need to do anything -- except be patient some more? Thank you very much.

68.196.195.49 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question; thanks for bringing it up. Apparently the submission template was modified so that sandboxes are no longer added to the pending submissions. We'll get that cleaned up shortly. For now I've moved your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas G. Bergin; it's correctly categorized now. Huon (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.195.49 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dangerous Dog Insurance[edit]

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

Hello Huon. thank you for your reply. But I think there is confusion. Dangerous Dog Insurance is a trademark. The article is about the trademark and the evolution the trademark. So, of course, the trademark appears in the article which is about a trademark. I think it makes sense that the trademark owner would have some input but I thought I removed all such references before I resubmitted the article for review. I don't know which version you viewed. But the article is about a trademark which is why the article is named after the trademark. I would not agree that the references are not reliable. The Insurance Information Institute has a wikipedia article and is one of the top sources of insurance information in the world. The state laws are supported by the laws published in those states. There is no source that is more reliable. The court cases are supported by authentic court documents. I will unbold the Dangerous Dog Insurance trademark and make other revisions. But again, I think you are missing the point which that the article is about a trademark and the evolution of it. If the article was promotional, it would be about a company that sells dangerous dog insurance. But is not about a company, it is about a trademark.Chasehunter1 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So when you wrote "This article is about states and insurance companies that don't have Breed-Specific Legislation and don't have blacklists", that was incorrect? In that case all the content that isn't on the trademark, such as the vast majority of the "State Insurance Regulations" section, should be removed. I also fail to see what the "Comparing Fatality Statistics For Dog Injuries With Crib Injuries" section tells readers about the trademark. The "Court Cases" section may be relevant, but cites only primary sources such as the Supreme Court's docket. I somehow doubt the Rules of the Court mention this trademark, and neither do quite a few of this section's other sources. Similarly, the III may or may not be reliable, but the cited source doesn't mention the trademark at all. As I said, synthesis problems. Huon (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Szybert/sandbox[edit]

I am wondering when my article would get an appropriate title. Currently "Szybert/sandbox" is at the top. The article is about a legal case. Can the title be formatted while it is still in my sandbox?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Szybert/sandbox

Sarah Zybert Szybert (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Designer Guild Limited v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. Huon (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Science DMZ Network Architecture[edit]

I found some information I wanted in a declined and abandoned AfC article from last year. After notifying the creator and doing research, I filled in a lot of missing context, and made further copy edits.

At this point, I think the article is ready to be moved to the article space, but I don't think I should be approving my own work, expecially following a decline. I would appreciate advice from another editor. Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution is to simply submit the draft for another review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I have submitted the draft on your behalf, but I'd say it still needs some heavy editing to achieve an encyclopedic tone (for example, "The term Science DMZ was coined by folks at the US Department of Energy's ESnet in 2010" - really, "folks"?). Huon (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was questioning that also. I added a cn tag, but I agree, it needs more. Wikfr (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Queen Mother Dr. Delois Blakely[edit]

Hi,

I have permission from Queen Mother and New Future foundation to use information from her website. But my article is being deleted for copyright violation. I have all consent from her to put the article. Can you please help me on this?

I really need help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkvaid (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright holder is willing to release the content under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which allows everybody to re-use and modify the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes, they can send a confirmation email (for example this declaration of consent) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, that website would have to be rewritten significantly to become encyclopedic, so much so that it's probably easier to rewrite the draft from scratch, based on what reliable independent sources have to say about her, than to bother with the copyrighted text. Huon (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]