Help desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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.

January 27[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Georges Hobeika[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for advice, regarding my article which has been declined. What do you think I should change or improve in order for the article to be published.

Many thanks, Gregor.P (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find more outside sources, such as news or magazine articles, that discuss this person. Otherwise, we do not know how he is "notable" as we say on Wikipedia, so he cannot have an article. At the top of the article there are some links after "Find sources" that should help. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that I've saved some edits that I've made to my submission. My hope is that you'll find that the additional sources enhance the notability of the subject, Ms. Turi Ryder, a radio show host, who is still on the air.

I would appreciate additional guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFT82 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Insight blog only has two short sentences about Ryder, so it is not significant coverage. There is nothing to indicate that the Blatherwatch blog is a reliable source. All of the other sources provided are not independent of Ryder (i.e. they are websites of companies that employed her) so they are no use for proving notability. As you will have read in Wikipedia:VRS, significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to prove the notability of a person.

Your references may be easier for reviewers to assess if you format them as described in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rangakuvara-sandbox[edit]

(Rangakuvara (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)) I am not getting kannada transliteration. How to get it. I was a very active contributor, but due to my illness I have become very less active. In the course of time, I will pick up.[reply]

Hello Rangakuvara, if you have general questions about Wikipedia, please check with WP:Teahouse to talk to mentors there. If you are interested in Kannada-language Wikipedia, have you checked out http://kn.wikipedia.org ? If you have questions about Kannada issues for English Wikipedia, please visit Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and post your question there (you may want to post your question in both English and Kannada since there are speakers there). MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was wondering how an article that I am working on could be rejected without submitting it for review? it's not finished yet I've just started it. --Symbolic by Nature (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Symbolic by Nature. Somehow you submitted it around 24-25 January. If you're still working on it, just avoid hitting the "Resubmit" button in the pink box until you're ready. Note, the new yellow "Awaiting review" box often appears at bottom of page instead of top (an unfortunate programming glitch), so a yellow box anywhere on the page overrules any contrary "not awaiting review yet" gray box. No matter, there's no penalty for having been declined, just take all the time you need to get it ready, then hit Resubmit when you are. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

An article on the Bwile people of Zambia and Congo Dr which I originally posted on my personal blog Chienge.com received comments and requests that I submit to Wikipedia to improve its quality and content as more contributers could participate. The Bwile tribe are resident in both Zambia and Congo Dr and are little known. My original research is an attempt to document them. Any way this could be done? Do I need permission from Blogger.com to migrate the project to Wikipedia or it is not possible? The Project is the Bwile People of Chienge etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAKA MSIMANGO (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katele Kalumba does not exist. Your earlier AFC draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Bwile people of Northern Zambia, their Movement and Settlement in the Lake Mweru, Chiengi District area was deleted for the reason explained on your user talk page, namely as an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://chiengecom.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-bwile-of-luapula-in-zambia_17.html . Apart from the copyright concern, material from blogs is not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smart Specialisation This page is a copy of the webpage http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/encyclopaedia/what-s3-means-for-european-regions-different-forms-of-smart-specialisation.html. It was written by a range of economic developers and scientists in the framework of a European Commission project called KNOW-HUB. Ever since the beginning of the KNOW-HUB project, it has been the aim of the KNOW-HUB consortium (of which EURADA is a part) to widen its horizon and to share the knowledge acquired through and during the project wide a large audience through WIKIPEDIA. This will allow for the improvement of the original KNOW-HUB articles, and will allow for outside output from experts outside of the KNOW-HUB consortium. We therefore request that the page is not removed from WIKIPEDIA. The authors of the KNOW-HUB articles have all signed an agreement to write articles for KNOW-HUB and for later sharing through WIKIPEDIA, so there are no copyright issues.EURADA (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The message in the box at the top of your AFC draft, and the corresponding message on your user talk page, each have a link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Beyond the copyright issues, it may be that the content of the website is not suitable as a Wikipedia article, but that can be covered in a subsequent review if the copyright issue is resolved. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Sonya Rhodes[edit]

In addition to Sonya Rhode's own website (which we understand are both associated with her name and thus not independently "verifiable") as well as Amazon links to her published books, what sorts of other sources will allow this article to be approved? We can also provide links to other examples of her professional published works and appearances.

Lucinda Literary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left lengthy comments on ways to improve the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Sonya Rhodes. I have added a few independent sources, although it needs much more to establish notability. I removed all the inappropriate links to pages on Amazon.com selling her books. I also rephrased the article in several places. The original version was virtually verbatim from www.drsonyarhodes.com/about. I have removed the mention of her forthcoming book, which had made this still résumé-like article seem like even more of an advertisement. Lucinda Literary, if you have any affiliation with the article's subject, either personal or professional, I suggest you read this page for guidance when editing under those circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor Mickey Keenan[edit]

Could you please tell me why my article was rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdillenburger (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kdillenburger, have you read the pink box at top of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor Mickey Keenan, and the comment typed below it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I am writing to you because the article on Emmanuel Séjourné that I wrote has been refused twice, on the basis of the non-importance of the musician, and I am strongly convinced of the contrary. I hope you understand that I do not intend to be impolite, but as I strongly disagree with Drmies's opinion on my article, I would like to request that it be verified by someone who does have a thorough knowledge in the field of contemporary percussion music. Drmies stated that there aren't any reliable secondary sources, neither in Google Books or Google News. Emmanuel Séjourné's presence on the internet though is abundant and Google Books/News are not the only source of reference. Many an article can surely be found in the paper editions as well. Me or him/her not being able to find them doesn't mean that somebody else won't - one of the main concepts of Wikipedia is to improve the articles through the contribution of its worldwide community, because it is not always possible for one person to find all the resources by themselves... I do agree with Drmies that a long list of works might seem too imposing. The principle of an encyclopedia though being to give as thorough information as possible, and all Séjourné's works having been played frequently, I chose not to be judgemental and list them all. Many other composers have their complete works listed as well.

In case the above arguments do not convince you, I include a list of other reasons supporting my point, and which can be easily checked with any specialist in the domain:

- Emmanuel Séjourné is known to be one of the two key figures in today's mallet percussion field in France, along Eric Sammut (I can say it with conviction, being a percussionist myself). He has been an advisor for the French ministry of culture in that matter, he has won a European audiovisual award, and has been performing and teaching all over France - the best orchestras and conservatories ask him to play or compose for them, and the proofs for it can be found all over the internet.

- he is also a worldwide renowned performer and composer in the domain. Many well-known institutions, orchestras, and musicians have him play with or compose for them. The proofs are also easily found all over the internet.

- he has given numerous masterclasses all over the world, in the best music academies on all continents; he regularly sits in the juries of numerous international percussion competitions, and his works are regularly being listed as reference repertoire.

- his press book contains several dozens of articles dating from the 80's up to now, he's mentioned in a French reference manual on the contemporary music, and I've even found a thesis written on his music.

- he's recorded several CDs with well-known labels such as Universal, Biber REcords, or Classic Concert Records, and his works are being sold by the well-known editors such as Honeyrock, Norsk Musikforlag, or Alfonce Production.

- finally, any specialist in contemporary percussion music will confirm that it is not "just another hardworking musician", as Drmis, who has refused my article, suggested...

And last but not least, my French version of the article (which I translated into English myself) has been accepted with a great deal of approval from the correction board. Which leaves me even more astonished to see the English version rejected, the admission requirements being the same. I regret not to be able to find any English books edited on the subject - being based in France, I have a limited acces to language resources other than the French ones. But I am sure that once my article is online, the contributions on the English ressources will follow...

All this taken into account, I will be very grateful if someone specialized in the sector of music I'm writting about accepts to check my article once again. I will be also happy for any advice on how to improve the article.

Thank you for your help, --Escrivendi (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Mckenzie6780/sandbox[edit]

i need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckenzie6780 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mckenzie6780, can you let us know specifically what you need help with? You submitted a blank page, so we can't even tell what it is you're trying to do. Are you trying to write an article, or suggest a new article for someone else to write, or what? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OGRE (Death Metal Band)[edit]

Hi,

I recently submitted an article about the band OGRE for review but got the response of "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

The band OGRE were an independent underground band and so much of the press for them was also independent and underground. I had cited eleven references, one being the "encyclopedia metallum" which is the whos who of all heavy metal bands worldwide, where it was stated that OGRE changed the whole heavy metal scene in the early 90's.

There is also a reference to the Irish Metal Archive which is the main source for everything heavy metal in Ireland.

What else should I have in there so it could be accepted? Thanks for your time. Kind regards, Mick.

Needlenuts (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested advice from WikiProject Metal. Please keep the question-answers here, my post there is just to notify them to come here if they have an opinion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the list of sources, most would not pass WP:RS (in fact, pretty much all of them, except for the band's own website, which could be used only to verify factual information). Forums and blogs are not reliable sources. Metal Archives and Rate Your Music are not reliable sources, as they are user-edited by anyone, not by professionals in the field. I also think the two files at the bottom of the article are not free images, but rather non-free promotional images that aren't "own work" (as claimed on those files' pages). A cursory Google search of "Ogre Ireland Death Metal" finds the band's own page (and facebook), user-edited sites like Metal Archives, blogs, forums, lyrics, and unrelated sites. Nothing jumped out at me as passing WP:RS, and so I think this band just doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It's nothing against the band, simply that they aren't notable enough for inclusion here.

Now, all that being said, I don't have access to much offline music content. Maybe Revolver/Hit Parader/Decibel/Kerrang/other rock and metal magazines or publications have given the band extensive coverage in the past (seeing as the band has been around since the early 90s). If so, those sources can be used and are considered reliable. But that will require some research on the part of the article's creator prior to the article being created.

A good place to look for sources is WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. A little more targeted to albums (thus the long list of review sites), but still a good starting point. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]