Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 29

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 29

08:57:56, 29 January 2017 review of submission by Vnbiryukov

• vnbiryukov (talk · contribs)

I have made supplements to articles "Lienard equation" and "Van der Pol oscillator". Are they accepted?

There is no "Save page" BUTTON BELOW! There is "Save changes" only.

Vnbiryukov (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Vadim Biryukov

Hello, Vn. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The two articles for which you made contributions are not within the ambit of the Articles for Creation project. Instead, the acceptability of your contributions will be assessed by the editors who work on those two pages and any questions you might have should be asked on the articles' Talk pages. For what it's worth, I think that adding your own book as a reference might be seen as self-promotional. However, that judgment will not be made by me, but by the other editors of those articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

16:16:58, 29 January 2017 review of draft by Jbu777

• Jbu777 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Miriam the Prophetess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to change title Jbu777 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jbu. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I think the title is not the major concern here. Because your submission looks to be an essay on a topic for which Wikipedia already has an article -- Miriam --, it is unlikely to be accepted for publication, regardless of its title. Instead, I suggest that you open up a discussion at the Talk page for Miriam, with a view to finding out how much of your essay might be incorporated into that article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

16:21:56, 29 January 2017 review of submission by Carrie at The Fischer Group

• Carrie at The Fischer Group (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fischer Homes Builder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ok, that makes sense. So what updates do I need to make to it for it to meet the new company guidelines? I don't see any specifics on that which we have not already covered here? I'm specifically looking for "doing this would make it meet the new guidelines" kind of information.

I've re-read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines and it appears from what I can see there that the article, in its current state covers the areas mentioned.

Again, as far as companies go, and looking at the other homebuilders (as well as other companies) in the space, Fischer is certainly in line with those which are included. (They have been in the top 50 home builders for many years now, they operate in multiple states nationwide, they have plenty of press on them, they are are one of the big builders for the St. Jude's dream home giveaway (which benefits less fortunate people), and the list goes on.

When you get time, let me know what I can do in the way of edits to help get this article revised and into the article space. I appreciate the info so far. It is helpful.

Thanks.

@Carrie at The Fischer Group: First, you need to follow the disclosure requirements regarding your conflict of interest.

You write that you've read WP:CORP multiple times, yet the draft still cites a single source, and that source is a trade journal. Trade journals have a limited audience, tend to employ "content producers" and "content marketing managers" rather than journalists, and often have a too-cozy relationship with the companies in their industry. They don't help establish notability, and might not be considered a reliable source.

The only claim of significance in the draft is being on a top-nnn list. Such lists are almost never worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. This one appears to be based purely on revenue figures volunteered by the companies themselves, figures which cannot be independently verified for non-public companies. Such a list might be of interest to the company's management and the list publisher, but is not of interest to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Using existing poor quality content as a model, or an excuse, for creating additional inferior content is not a good idea. See the essays Other stuff exists and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for further explanation. There are no good articles about home builders, but if you want to learn from examples, study Fluor Corporation, BuroHappold Engineering, and Hochtief.

Before proceeding, read WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Most businesses do not, and should not, have Wikipedia articles. If you create an article, you will have no control over what gets into that article. If you want information about illegal immigrant workers in or out, you're liable to get the reverse.

Any article will need to be based on multiple, independent, reliable sources that contain a significant depth of coverage. The most likely sources would be meaty stories from major newspapers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Even better would be the Chicago Tribune, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)