Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 31
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 30 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | June 1 > |
| 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 31 edit
Hi I really need Sekushi Boutique to be on Wikipedia. I will otherwise lose my job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyyyyyyaneee (talk • contribs) 05:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your submission will be reviewed according to Wikipedia's standards, and either accepted or declined on its merits alone.
- This is a troubling comment; is your job at the company you're writing about? Because our conflict of interest policy strongly discourages writing about an organisation you are connected with. joe•roet•c 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have submitted this article on "Nikhil Sen" but it didn't meet the criteria for publication. There is no conventional publications which can be quoted as a reference, so I have used my personal interviews with him and a publication of the College (Senior School) that he has help establish and is involved in. Apparently this doesn't satisfy Wikipedia standards for publications. Please advise how I can overcome this difficulty.
--Sayeed1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayeed1962 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- If there are no published sources about a topic, then it can't be included in Wikipedia, because the content of the article can't be verified. Personal interviews, if not published, can't be verified by other editors, so aren't an acceptable source. There's no way around it – some topics just aren't suitable for inclusion. joe•roet•c 07:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am unclear as to what isn't verifiable info in my submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronicarukkuz (talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your draft's sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The record label and the Facebook page are primary sources. None of them have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require. Without significant coverage in reliable sources - such as news pieces - Antiserum appears to be non-notable. I don't see him satisfying the music-specific notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, either. Huon (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Article draft in question: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)
My wiki bio page for the above person has been rejected by your reviewers on three occasions. As a last resort I would now request someone at the help desk to help me start a page? I can provide for you the minimum information required and supported by sources such as
1) The sports governing body, the Internationl Amateur Athletic Federation (iaaf.org) - see Susan's IAAF biography at http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=irl/athcode=130179/index.html
2) The Irish governing body, Athletics Ireland - see list of National records at http://www.athleticsireland.ie/content/?page_id=105
3) The Irish Times (Ireland's newspaper of record) - for examples see
Thanking you in anticipation
(Scotty1891 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC))
- I'm not sure what the problem is here. Smith clearly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for sportspeople, because she has clearly participated at the Olympics. I'll move your article to mainspace. Obviously, if there is anything of interest in the Irish Times articles about her, it will help readers if you add it to the article. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem with reliable sources edit
Hi, I am struggling to put this article online:
[Collateral Management Conference]
It is about the conference organized by Fleming Europe. I added here link from the medias that wrote about this conference but it still seems not enough. At least securitieslengdingtimes.com looks as quiet reliable source to me. I really don't know what to do now. And do I understand it correctly, that the topic and the text of the article is ok and the problem is only with reliable sources?
Thank you, Peter Peterkortvel (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic is considered non-notable and unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Of the sources you currently have, two are primary sources. I have doubts about FinRoad - there is no indication of editorial oversight, and I don't think it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require of reliable sources. And the Securities Lending Times discusses the conference's conclusions, but not the conference itself. I did a quick Google News search and came up with no hits regarding the conference. That does not look promising. Huon (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
What exactly are you looking for reference-wise? How many references do you need? From whom would be suitable references, manufacturers, customers, stores, media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinulya123 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are sources which are independent of the subject and which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Manufacturers obviously are not independent of their product, and stores would have an obvious conflict of interest when reporting about a product they try to sell. The media are probably a much better source; maybe some gun magazine has reviewed the weapons? As an aside, the references should back up what the article actually says. The NRA website, for example, does not even mention Gletcher and thus is useless as a reference. Furthermore, to make the task of verifying the article's content easier, you should tell the reader which of your references supports which statement by using footnotes. Huon (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't tell if this page has been submitted for review or not, and if not, how do I submit it? Thanks! Corinna128 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Corinna128
- It has not been submitted; you can do so by adding
- {{Afc submission}}
- to the top. But your draft currently has a single reference which does not even mention the article's topic. That's obviously not enough to establish the topic's notability or even to verify its existence. Establishing notability requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Submitting the draft without such coverage will just see it declined. Huon (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have some problems with my tables. I would like to make them look like the german version
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Kretzer
For some reason it does not work. Could you help me? Thanks very much, best regards -- Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- To me they look just like the German tables. But there is another severe problem: Many sections of the article are completely unreferenced, and the references we have seem to link to images and documents on Kretzer's personal website - those are very likely to be copyright violations. Even worse, although Granma has an archive reaching back to at least May 2003, I cannot find the June 2003 article of which a copy is supposed to be depicted as reference 4. That's a little troubling. Huon (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. Strange, that the tables look to you properly. To me they are quite different, esp. the gallery, which is located on the left side instead on the right, although I used the code class="float-right".
- The "copyright violation" should not be a problem at all: there won't be a folder named "Wikipedia" on http://www.marcus-kretzer.com if he would disagree to the use of its content. Logical? Besides, I got the permission by Marcus Kretzer to use these links to this special folder. How can I prove this? Is there a form for such cases? Sorry for asking, but I am new in this business and, worse, from Germany :-))
- The June 18 2003 article of Granma is a screenshot, taken in 2003. No idea, why especially this article now cannot be found anymore in Granma's archive. The only articles I could find are http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.granma.cu+Marcus%20Kretzer At least they show that Kretzer was there and did what he did. Is that a sufficiant reference? Best regards -- Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.g-webs.com/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/REBTECH
I saw this on the Internet and want it removed. How?
How do I avoid other articles from being exposed on the Internet before they are approved? Jhowardco (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jhowardco, where did you find a link to that site? I am unfamiliar with g-webs but I believe that the link you posted is some sort of proxy. Wikipedia can't remove and entire proxy as it is just another route of accessing the normal wikipedia page. All wikipedia pages, created or uncreated, are on the internet and can be accessed by going via articles for creation. My best suggestion is, if it's your article, ignore the link for now and finish revising your article so that it can go live. When it goes live, the link you posted won't work because the article will be moved from articles for creation to the mainspace. If this is not your article and your main worry is that you don't want the article to pass review then there is nothing you can really do for that. If a subject is notable and follows Wikipedia's guidelines, it will pass review and be made a live page. Trying to attack that process with malicious edits will only get you banned and the edits can be reversed. (I do NOT mean to insinuate that you intend to attack the article if your desire is that the article never goes live; I don't want to attack your character! I'm just stating the facts about that process if you didn't know.) Best of luck with your article/issue! And if anyone else knows more about g-webs, please post to help out! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- To me that looks not like a proxy but a bizarre kind of mirror. Since all of Wikipedia's content (with the exception of some images, but that's not relevant here), including article drafts, is published under a free licence (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, to be exact), there's nothing Wikipedia can do to have the draft deleted. I'd suggest one of two ways: Either contact that site's operators, or, probably easier, try to get the draft submitted and hope that the mirror will reflect that. If it is indeed a proxy, getting the Wikipedia draft accepted would probably also take care of the g-webs version. (G-webs.com seems a Polish newspaper, but I don't read Polish, so no guarantees, and I have no idea why they'd host a Wikipedia mirror.) Huon (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Help regarding review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca edit
Hello, So I submitted my article, Nina G. Vaca, a couple times previously and it was rejected for very legitimate reasons of notability and reading like an advertisement. Since then, I have revised it to fix these issues (or at least attempt to!) and I submitted it for review a couple of days ago. The other two times I submitted it, it was reviewed within a day or two, and I'm starting to get worried that it may have gotten lost this time on the review page and accidentally skipped over. I know that the reviewers have lots of work to do and do everything voluntarilly and I praise them for their work; I just wanted to see if there was anything I could do to make sure my article didnt get lost. Should I submit my article again or just be patient? I'm still learning the processes on Wikipedia and I'm helping out where I can; I'd really appreciate some help or reassurance on this one! (tag removed)
- Edit - Apparently I wasn't logged in, so my tag was incorrect. Whoops! Here's the right one! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Huon! Sorry if I sounded impatient; I didn't mean it that way! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't dropping the ball somewhere! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Accepted Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there I am having trouble getting this article accepted. I am not sure what else needs to be cited or if its my resources that are not being accepted. please help, thanks!Cszydlowski (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the draft shows significant coverage of Linkner in reliable secondary sources. With the exception of the New York Times bestseller list, all sources are by organizations Linkner is affiliated with (ie primary sources), and the bestseller list is hardly significant coverage. What we need are people independent of Linkner writing about him. Maybe therre's some news coverage of his bestselling book or an independent review? The section on his career currently isn't supported by references at all. Huon (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm confused. This article has been rejected three times for not having adequate citations. The first time I used imdb links, but these are not allowed. Now I have links to the Graduate Acting Program alumni web site, ibdb, Tony, Emmy, and Academy Award sites, and several others.
A brief perusal of several other similar pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_University_alumni, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_Law_School_alumni, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oberlin_College_alumni shows that most of the individuals listed on these pages have no citations at all, merely links to their profiles in Wikipedia. What do I need to do to have this article accepted?
Thanks,
216.165.95.72 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)James
- This list is simply not required. Those individuals who are notable alumni can simply be listed (if they are not already) at List of New York University alumni against the relevant school. To create what is effectively a sub-list delves into the realms indiscriminate information. Which forms part of WP:NOT. Pol430 talk to me 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)