Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 April 16
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 15 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 17 > |
| 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. |
April 16 edit
04:21:10, 16 April 2018 review of submission by 112.206.206.207 edit
- 112.206.206.207 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
112.206.206.207 (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure what your question is, as you don't appear to have a draft article up for review. Are you in the right place? KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
13:34:52, 16 April 2018 review of submission by Ahurskainen edit
- Ahurskainen (talk · contribs)
What does it precisely mean that the content is not verifiable. The links were tested. Many links are directly to Wikipedia and every external link is trustworthy. You should tell in more detail what should be corrected. Ir is there some stuff that should not be there. The article attempts to be an informatove descriptions on someone, who has devoted the life for language technology. Please, more detailes on what is wrong.
Ahurskainen (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Ahurskainen. Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. User:Ahurskainen/sandbox should not cite it as a reference. More generally, Wikipedia is not Linkedin. It is not a place to write about yourself, or a place where all academics are written about. The relevant criteria for inclusion are outlined in WP:PROF. The first or second sentence of a draft should state why the academic is notable. If you believe Arvi Hurskainen meets the notability guidelines, then you can avoid a conflict of interest by requesting at WP:RA that a biography be written by a disinterested and experienced Wikipedian. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
17:02:55, 16 April 2018 review of submission by Augusztino edit
- Augusztino (talk · contribs)
Augusztino (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Done subject is notable on several counts and I've accepted it. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
18:47:00, 16 April 2018 review of submission by Gutchman edit
I want to insert a logo on a page which is trademarked. I was provided by the trademark by the organization to use.
See the similar cross and its placement in the box on the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Wikipedia page. The cross I want to use would be the cross for the Lutheran Indian Ministries (www.lutheranindianministries.org).
How do I do this?
Gutchman (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Gutchman (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello @Gutchman: logos may only be added after a Draft has become a published article. After a Draft is accepted, you can follow the instructions at WP:Logo to upload the logo, under the WP:Fair use copyright exception. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello
I have been working on a brief article about my favorite local chocolate company, Endorfin Foods. My initial submissions were rejected due to a lack of reliable sources (since the company is relatively small, the coverage I was able to find was from local news sources and bloggers).
The company recently received coverage in Candy Industry Magazine here: http://digital.bnpmedia.com/publication/?i=387910&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:387910,%22page%22:40} and here: https://www.candyindustry.com/articles/88076-taste-tv-international-chocolate-salon-choose-best-chocolatiers-and-confectioners-in-america
Would the inclusion of these sources (and the removal of all non-reliable sources, like those on local blogs) be sufficient to show the subject's notability?
Thank you for your help with this. This is my first time writing a wikipedia article for a for-profit company. I understand you need to be very careful re: which articles of this nature are approved, and appreciate the wikipedia moderators taking the time to educate me.
Atszostek (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Atszostek (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Atszostek - Without reviewing the whole article, it's hard to say, but those two articles on their own won't pass general notability guidelines. The first source is very good however, it has significant coverage of the store, in a publication, which is great. Whilst the second source is likely a good source, it doesn't have more than a simple mention of the subject. it's a good source to include in an article, but it won't help towards WP:GNG. Hope that helps. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)