Help desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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 11[edit]

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

Hello,

This article is a draft in question, submitted for review. I need to change the title of the article from Quintino to DJ Quintino.

Please let me know how I can do this.

Thank You, Sydney

Aceagencysydney (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be a autoconfirmed user to move pages, which requires your account to have at least 10 edits and be older than four days. One problem with your article is that most of it is not verified by reliable sources, so while we normally accept music artists who have had chart success under the guidelines in WP:NMUSIC, we can only do so if the chart positions can be verified. www.everyhit.com, for instance, lists top 40 artists in the UK. I would hold off on moving the article, until you find a source that actually states what he is best known as. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I am trying to figure out how to get this article finished. It has been declined three times. Each time it was declined, I thought I did exactly what was asked and now this third time says to do something else. I am thinking that maybe I am not understanding what is beimg asked and that I am just moving in the wrong direction. I added a dozen more references last time and two very kind editors, Huon and Sue Rangall, helped with some formatting and wording, but it still got declined. Can you help? I will do what needs to be done. Thanks so much for any help you can offer.

Editwriter98 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I picked three sources at random here, here and here, all of which are, in my view reliable being established news outlets, and all of which are specifically about Branch and cover her work for at least several paragraphs. In my view, therefore, Branch is notable and your article should have passed. I've asked the most recent editor who declined your submission to give their views on the subject, to see if I've misunderstood anything. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the links listed under "External links" should actually be used - and properly cited - as sources for the content of the article. Roger (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting references as inline cites is good practice, and will avoid a {{nofootnotes}} or {{more footnotes}} template being put on an article, but is not a reason to fail it at AfC. Our guidelines on inline references only mandate them for direct quotations or questionable information, frequently contentious information about a living person. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments and your help. I thought the external links would be enough - do I just need to add them on top of the references I am using fo rthe text? Will that be sufficient? Thanks again - Ia prreciate your help. Editwriter98 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have a look at Referencing for Beginners and The guidelines for citing sources that explain how to use our inline citation templates. Basically, you need to find the sentence or paragraph in the article that is backed up by the source, and add an inline reference in the form <ref>{{cite web|url=http://first.source.site/|title=First source name}}</ref> immediately after it. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have done that and increased the referencing and will hope for the best. I appreciate your help so much. Editwriter98 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the article as a stub. Having now got it in mainspace, the next thing you should strive for is use the sources you have found to expand and improve the article further. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would like to add more info, but when I submitted it the first time they said it was not encyclopedia like, so I took it down to the bare bones. I would like to include something else, but am afraid of having it removed if I do so. After working so long to get it here, could that happen? I know anything I add will need to be backed up by a reference! Thanks again for your help.Editwriter98 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fault, and I'm going to correct it right now. I was a bit rusty when I started reviewing these things, so hopefully I have gotten the hang of it by now. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I'll go ahead and create it right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ritchie has beaten me too it, but again, I am sorry for the inconvenience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Do you know what kind of info I can include that will keep it in line with Wiki standards but that will improve it? I just noticed an editor removed all the external links that I thought I had to put there to improve the sourcing. It says to use them to further improve the article, but I do not know what information to include. Earlier I was told to remove a lot of info I had up there. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. Editwriter98 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NRGLab, Pte. Ltd., Singapore[edit]

This draft article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/NRGLab,_Pte._Ltd.,_Singapore

was declined due to allegations of using copyrighted material. This is not correct. The company owns the copyrighted material and I have been retained by the company to post this entry about their highly newsworthy and influential energy technology.

The article was formatted, with multiple references cited correctly -- and I devoted a lot of time to getting it right, only to have some anonymous editor vaporize the content. I ask that clearer heads prevail and post this article.

If any knowledgeable person can point out where there is copyrighted material used improperly, kindly let contributors know this before simply whacking their work out of existence. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvansS1 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above the "Save page" button, you can see "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This is a very specific type of licence, and means we can only copy information from another site, if it expliclty has a compatible free licence.

Why do we mandate this? Well, the GFDL allows anyone to take the information, put it somewhere else, modify it in any way they like, and even sell it. So, to give an extreme example, I could take the text of your article, modify it to put in lots of false and unverifiable claims, put it in a book, and sell it, and that is acceptable under our licence. So we need everyone to be absolutely sure that's what they want. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Caruso Jr.[edit]

Need help submitting my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.100.24 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Ritchie333 said, per our guidelines on biographies of living persons the claims about Caruso's criminal activity would have to be supported by reliable sources. Google and Wikipedia are not reliable sources at all, and it's not enough to point to a newspaper - you'd have to give the specific issue at the very least. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the article's claims. Otherwise the draft is just a collection of libelous rumors. Huon (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't create an article related to my company[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Islamic Countries Young Entrepreneurs Network (ICYEN)

Hi, I want to create an article about the ICYEN using the oicyen.org website information (I am legally working in this organization and have permission to use website materials), but it seems I can't do that because there is copyright problem.

How can I overcome this difficulty and create this article by using oicyen.org website information?

Thank you.

P.S. Providing the email that I got on 18th of December. Dear ICYEN,

The Wikipedia page User talk:ICYEN has been created on 18 December 2012 by Alexrexpvt, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ICYEN for the current revision.

Editor's summary: Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] (AFCH)

Contact the editor: mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Alexrexpvt wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexrexpvt ICYEN (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies up on this one, I've described the basic reason we delete copyright violations and why it doesn't necessarily appear obvious to newcomers at a first glance. As Alexrexpvt said, by far the simplest thing to do is rewrite the article again in your own words, which is acceptable. What you can't do is simply copy and paste. One other thing to note, however, is writing an article about your own company is generally considered a bad idea, as autobiographies can have problems with a conflict of interest and a neutral point of view. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PUMBA -Department of Management Sciences, Pune unviersity[edit]

115.241.171.53 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC) PUMBAites[reply]

That draft is currently not submitted for review, and the sources it cites are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Organizations must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage, to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

creating a page for new music group[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S.W.A.G. Satisfaction With A Guarantee What can I do to improve the Article for approval? Also how do I add a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njswag12 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria for musicians is quite strict due to the very large amount of band and musicians and articles that get created. In summary, unless your band has continued coverage in major national newspapers or magazines, or has hit the charts, it probably isn't suitable for Wikipedia. I can't think of many notable bands that have never charted anywhere - even Half Man Half Biscuit have done it with one top 75 hit. Finally, you should avoid writing any article about anything you have a direct involvement in, as it can violate our core policies of neutral point of view and conflict of interest. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, Inc.[edit]

In this article submitted, I have highlighted in bold print technical words associated with the industry & science of lightning protection systems. I have put together a glossary, located in my sandbox ==Glossary of relevant terminology== 1) in the the attempt to make the original article as concise as possible, & 2) to lay a foundation for specific terminology relevant to the specific article & lightning protection in general.

I understand it does need some work, citations, etc. I also know this glossary of terminology does not exist in the wiki world. To add it into this article for submission would not be correct, as it applies equally across all disciplines of lightning protection and is specific to the field. Would this "glossary" be better submitted as an "article" of its own? Looking for advice on how to best proceed.

Thank you Borealdreams (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I don't see how a glossary of terms would make an acceptable article. I also don't quite see why an article on a company would have to deal with such details as the Isokeraunic Number. In fact, the draft seems to veer off-topic rather wildly, and quite a few of the given references don't discuss the company at all. Those should probably be removed. Quite a few other references, including, say, the founder's book, aren't independent and should be used with caution lest we give them undue weight. Huon (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken... the idea is presented in full knowledge that the terminology common to the industry is often not clear, poorly defined and often misrepresented, where word choice is many times chosen because it flows better in a sentence and fails to acknowledge the technical relevance lost by it being replaced. With respectful regards to your choice of identifying "Isokeraunic Number" as potentially off-base... it is the "language" by which lightning protection systems of all types, the world over, relate and justify their need. But, as you can see.... it currently sits in obscurity within the wiki world. Both examples are common in this topic. Undue weight and independent considerations have also been taken into account, and used sparingly... but just as a discussion of Apple could not occur without mention of Steve Jobs or Jobs without Apple, the same is true here. Borealdreams (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

hello, i am new at this. not sure quiet what the line is b/t verifiable information and content -- the first paragraph of this article is directly adapted from the cited source. it follows the same grammatical structure as the source paragraph but i've adjusted the wording to be substantially different. since i don't want to create the content, and this is about an artist's work rather than something factually verifiable (i.e. scientific or a matter of historical record), i felt it was better to stick closely to what is stated in the source description of lins's work. please advise and thanks for your thoughts Triplex doublr (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are problematic because they aren't as independent as we'd like: Two are galleries where Lins exhibited her work, the third is a foundation of which she is a fellow. I don't think any of the sources were subject to editorial oversight either. Truly independent, reliable sources such as news coverage or reviews in reputable art magazines would be much better, especially to establish Lins' notability.

In order to make our articles on subjective topics such as art or music factually verifiable, we attribute statements to their respective sources: "According to art critic John Doe, Lins' work considers the psychological and aesthetic relations between objects and representations..." Then we report notable opinions about Lins' work without expressing an opinion of our own. Huon (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Triplex, I agree art-speak can often be impenetrable. Sometimes if you think a couple of sentences from a website sum up the artist's intent, you can simply put them "in quotation marks" with an inline citation to the source. While you have changed some of the wording of the Tang Museum website, it is still questionable whether it is sufficiently different to not flout copyright guidelines. In my view, almost all art 'interrogates itself and the viewer' so that part of the description probably doesn't tell us much :)

However, the big problem you have to deal with is to prove Lins in 'notable' enough for her own Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or the alternative notability guidelines for artists. You'll need to show strong evidence that Lins and/or her work is widely known and important, preferably by providing independent, reliable sources that talk about her/it. Art galleries exhibiting her work are unlikely to be reliable or independent, because they are promoting Lins and her work. Sionk (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks all for your thoughts -- i understand your concerns about lins's notability based on the content i created. i am wondering though: wouldn't a museum, such as the Tang Museum (part of skidmore college) be considered a reliable source? i agree that a for-profit art gallery would not be a reliable source but it seems to me that a museum has to adhere to ethical standards that would qualify them as such. i also want to point out that finding independent sources in the art world is very difficult: art magazines, especially reputable ones, carry advertisements from many of the galleries they review. i'm not saying that this necessarily influences who they review but it does seem like a conflict of interest as regards their independence.

i will attempt a revision of the lins page in the near future and thank you again for taking the time to comment on my question. Triplex doublr (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]