Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 11 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 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.


January 12[edit]

04:48:55, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Ireneirene2006[edit]


Can you please check if my page is under reviewing?

It has been a long time.

Thanks

See the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Breteau_Foundation

Ireneirene2006 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ireneirene2006: no Declined I left comments on the draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:26, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Jazanna[edit]


Jazanna (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC) I would like some input on what to include or edit in order to make the article acceptable for Wikipedia. Among the 9 references already provided, 5 are external third party references. Any suggestions would be appreciated.[reply]

@Jazanna: You need to provide independent reliable sources. We can't accept the word of church groups. Try to find newspaper and magazine articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand a bit on what Chris has said - we cannot accept the church groups' statements as sources that establish notability because they are involved with the subject - thus they are not independence sources. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:33, 12 January 2015 review of submission by SCWP[edit]

We have tried to create a page for a 'stretch ceiling' a number of times and have been declined on the basis that it reads like an advertisement. Having taken out the references to our company and keeping it generic to all stretch ceilings I can't understand how it still appears as an advertisement? Any ideas on what we can do?PhilSC (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) PhilSC (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SCWP: : The submission as I look at it doesn't appear to be an obvious advertisement for anything. However, a bulk of its references are other Wikipedia articles. Why not simply update the information in the existing Ceiling article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Wikipedia pages being references be the problem? If thats the case I can look for new references.

We did think about trying to edit an existing page to feature stretch ceilings but if we can get its own up and running that would be better.PhilSC (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SCWP: Yes, you shouldn't use other Wikipedia articles as references, as anyone could change an article at any time, and the information you referenced would suddenly not be verifiable. I've had a quick look on Google Books and added a basic definition of a stretched ceiling to Wikipedia's ceiling article, to give you some ideas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is possible that that advise is what we've need the whole time! I have resubmitted the article without any Wikipedia references so hopefully this will improve its chances.

Also, thank you for including a brief description on the Ceiling page. Would we be able to give you a few sentences to add to it?

13:21:27, 12 January 2015 review of submission by 212.34.250.250[edit]

Hi. My article was declined as being read as an advertisement. I would like to review the article and would kindly ask you to provide a more detailed look of why it was decline so that I can change the article to the acceptable level. 212.34.250.250 (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Petrosyanllt: Sentences like "Monitis provides a complete package of monitoring services including Website Monitoring, Server Monitoring, Network Monitoring, Application Monitoring, Cloud Monitoring, and Custom Monitoring in one consolidated dashboard and with aesthetic graphical reports" is blatant ad copy. Separately, this draft has no independent reliable sources. The two citations from Reuters are actually press releases. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:48, 12 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Stewart1967[edit]

I am trying to submit my first article, but it has been rejected, I have added extra sources and links, but still it has been rejected again. I have looked at other similar articles, but cannot see for the most, why they have been approved whereas mine has not. Any help or assistance on this would be really helpful thanks.

Stewart1967 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stewart1967: Draft:The Gents doesn't have enough independent reliable sources. You've listed only one newspaper article. The reviewer comments explain this. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman:. That is not correct. Indie Hits: The Complete UK Independent Charts: The Complete UK Singles and Album Independent Charts, 1980-89 is a reliable source, and can be used to verify the claim that the band meet WP:NMUSIC with a top 100 chart hit. I have added a few other sources and passed the submission. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, then. I've never heard of using Amazon as a reliable source for anything. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Amazon isn't, that was just a link to prove the book's existence. The actual source is the book publishing arm of Cherry Red Records, and all that its verifying is chart positions. Guinness Publishing's British Hit Singles (compiled by Paul Gambaccini) is my "go to" source for this stuff, but I don't have a copy right now, and hence I don't any easy way of proving that the citation for the chart positions is false. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So because the book exists we're just going to AGF that it asserts what the editor claims? That's pretty weak. If you want to go hunting for sources that's your business but I stand by my original comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was policy to AGF on offline sources. I trust all the print sources The Rambling Man uses on The Boat Race 1877 and elsewhere - what's different here, other than the information in the citation is incomplete? I appreciate the band's notability is tenuous, but that doesn't mean claims should be dismissed out of hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's down to troutman to do the work and prove the offline reference wrong. If something is referenced in an offline source and someone has access to it and uses it (assuming it to be a reliable source) then it's absolutely fine to use it. Of course it's ideal to have more easily accessible online sources so those who don't want to shift off the sofa or subscribe to a decent archiving organisation can feel warm and glowing about the veracity, but that simply isn't the case in millions of articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the book, not the book seller. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, like Lazzell, Barry (4 March 2000). Indie Hits: The Complete UK Independent Charts: The Complete UK Singles and Album Independent Charts, 1980–89. Cherry Red Books. ISBN 978-0951720691. .... And add a page number (using |page=XX). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! In the meantime, this have given me motivation to create an essay I've been mulling over for some time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:23, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Yd85[edit]


Yd85 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to get the wikipedia page for 'The Pacific Review' up - http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rpre20/current#.VLPZAyuUefk

It has a long publication history and is well-regarded by the IR community.

Many 'lesser' academic journals in various disciplines have got their pages, so why was this rejected?

@Yd85: You need to add citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article to show notability, we're not just going to take your word for it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:26, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Périphérique[edit]


I created an article for Eduardo Monteiro in June 2014. It appears to have been accepted, and is up and running. However, it was said to have multiple issues: orphan, needs links to and from other wiki pages. I have, since June 2014, inserted numerous links to and from other Wiki pages. Is this sufficient? Can it now be re-reviewed with a view to removing the critical comments?--Périphérique (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Périphérique (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:52, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Dawn Charles[edit]


Dawn Charles (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which items are copyrighted in the article I submitted? I will be happy to delete these.

@Dawn Charles: Anything posted on another website, unless otherwise specified, is assumed to be under copyright. Anything that you didn't write yourself in your own words should be removed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:43, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Kkpk091811[edit]


Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc. (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day;

I would like to asked some assistance to review our article if we violate the policy of wikipedia.

Thanks and best regards Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc. (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkpk091811: You provided no sources. Your draft is horribly promotional. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is horribly promotional, and heavily paraphrased from a variety of other webpages. It's also certain to be thoroughly non-notable. Bellerophon talk to me 23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_January_12&oldid=1115472550"