Help desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 11[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth M. Lewis[edit]

Do you think this article is more appropriate and helps solving the notability problem we have been talking about?

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/1998/08/15/127790.html

Here´s the google translation (it sucks, I can do much better...)

Marit and Marion sign-million contract Pop-fairytale comes true LØRENSKOG (Dagbladet): The legendary American label Atlantic and Lørenskog girls Marit Larsen (15) and Marion Raven (14) all-time popsjanse. The girls have gotten an advance in millions.

By HÅKON Mosler Saturday 15 August 1998 9:10

Almost right from the unknown is high school students picked up for major launches in the U.S.. - This is like a dream. Absolutely fantastic, says girls who in recent years has acted as the duo Marit and Marion. In February, the two US-issued as pop duo M & M with Atlantic's powerful owners, Warner Bros. Group, in the back. Already in september recording. At the same time stop the girls at school to devote himself to popsatsingen. Marion's father, Hallgeir Raven, being from then on the girls' private teacher.

Fjortis Dream Never have two Norwegian fjortiser got such a unique opportunity in the U.S. music industry. Dagbladet wrote about Marit and Marion Star dream back in March. Then they had a record of children's songs to his credit, while they were making good progress with its new popsound. Both then and now they are affiliated production company Waterfall Productions in Grünerløkka in Oslo. Since then, great things happened. A number of companies both in Norway and the U.S. have shown interest in the young pop duo. And when the girls and producer Kenneth Lewis was invited over to Atlantic in New York in June, they had powerful hand in the form of offers from several other U.S. companies. - But Atlantic fell completely for the girls, we felt ourselves very well received and they delivered a very good contract proposal. Since there has actually been formalities have been re, says Lewis. Now, however, everything in the box and M & M can come out on top.

Million-amount Lewis does not deny that the Atlantic contract is very lucrative art. The record industry in Oslo already swirling rumors that Marit and Marion received an advance of a million dollars, that is, around 11.4 million Norwegian crowns. Lewis denies the allegations. - It is not a question so much money. But we have got a very good deal with Atlantic, including in the economic plan. We are especially pleased with the royalty rates, that is, the amount of money we get per disc sold. Marit Elisabeth Larsen and Marion Elise Ravn have been best friends since the age of seven six. They have gone to the ballet together, played in various musicals and directed the band Hubba Bubba. Now they are a new and exciting life ahead. - It will be strange not to go to school when we get up in the morning. And mostly around will probably change. Whichever way this goes, people will look at us in a different way, concludes Marit.

Are herself Despite his young age, do not seem Marit and Marion that the road to the American platebransjes skyscrapers have gone too fast. - It has not gone faster than we have been able to constantly keep up with what's happened. We have not had the feeling that things have been determined over our heads, they say. - What is the reason the Atlantic would have just you? - They like how we sing and they like that we are natural. We are two girls of 14 and 15 years, and not pretending we are something else, answer Marit and Marion. Both girls and producer Lewis is clear that a major contract is not synonymous with success. - It is not that we are successful, and that's actually part of what makes it fun to be in the pop industry. But we know that we are a big company, we know that we are a big priority for Atlantic and we know that we are published all over the world. This is very, stresses Lewis. M & M will be releasing a single in January, while the album is planned released in February.

Oslocat (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is definitely a reliable source, but what does it say about Lewis? Lewis is a producer who worked with Marit and Marion, and he was invited to New York by the Atlantic label in June 1998. That's it, isn't it? The article isn't really about Lewis at all, and it mostly treats him as a spokesperson for Marit and Marion. I don't think it's significant coverage of Lewis as required by our notability guideline. Huon (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon. This article confirms the position of Lewis as a producer. You presume he´s a spokesperson for the girls, but this is your personal opinion. He got them signed to Atlantic records (EMI) in NY, that´s a fact. With that deal M2M released 3 albums, sold millions of records and reached top chart positions, worldwide. I´ve checked your list of "norwegian producers" and I can tell you that most wikipedia requirements are not fulfilled at all. Most of the rferences and links are often not "only about" the person in subject, there is a tendency to list unreliable sources (myspace, discorg ect. ) and by clicking some of those links I´m redirected to "This page cannot be found".... How is it possible that some articles have been accepted not respecting the wiki criteria and we are still struggling with mine?

Oslocat (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the source doesn't say it was Lewis who got M2M signed to Atlantic: Atlantic "fell for the girls", not for Lewis' persuasion. And other problematic articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. We should instead improve or, if necessary, delete the other problematic articles. Huon (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for creation - :Articles_for_creation/James_Reuben[edit]

Hello,

I am waiting for my page to be reviewed, can you confirm how long this will take it has been more than a week. On the page it is saying it will be about 1 week.

Page in question :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/James_Reuben

Many thanks for all your help. Prashant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prash2000 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says it can take over a week. There's currently a massive backlog of more than 1,600 unreviewed submissions, and the oldest of them are about four weeks old. Please be patient.

At a glance I'd say the draft still relies almost exclusively on primary sources such as the websites of organizations Reuben is affiliated with. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him. Huon (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applied Data Corporation (2)[edit]

I am wondering what areas need to be changed for our article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applied Data Corporation (2), as the format follows similar companies in our industry, such as Retalix, RedPrairie. Any advice would be appreciated.

JamieSimon (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Jamie Simon[reply]

The draft doesn't show that Applied Data Corporation has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Inc. is just a directory entry without any details, the SAP wiki appears to be user-submitted content, doesn't show any evidence of editorial oversight, doesn't appear to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards and doesn't say what it's cited for anyway, and the partners' websites aren't independent. These sources don't suffice to establish Applied Data Corporation's notability, and they also don't suffice to verify major parts of the draft. For example, the entire "history" section doesn't cite any sources at all.

Other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits.

Furthermore, the draft uses quite a lot of buzzwords and reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. For example, I believe they don't just develop software solutions, but the software itself. Huon (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Off The Bar[edit]

Hi I am trying to get the following article published: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Off_The_Bar#.27Off_The_Bar.27:_Loaded_TV_show.

Can I be very cheeky and request a friendly editor give me the heads up on whether it is fit for acceptance and what needs doing if it is not?

I have similar entries in the pipeline and want to minimise time and efort for Wiki good people and msself.

Many thanks!Old Bedan (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above half the draft's sources look like primary sources to me, such as the loaded.tv website, and the other half doesn't mention the show at all. To be considered notable the show must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about the show. The current draft doesn't indicate the show's notability and thus cannot be accepted. Huon (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religion's Affect on Asylums[edit]

I have tried to submit my work but it will not tell me it has been submitted, I have followed the procedures of submitting and it is not giving me any feedback, how do I fix this? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religion's Affect on Asylums

Ashgreer92 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a problem with the references. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong, but nothing after your first reference section showed up, presumably because all the rest (including the submission template) was wrongly interpreted as part of one large footnote. I fixed that, removed the duplicate copies of the draft and submitted it for review. Please make sure that I got all the references' page numbers right; I'm not entirely sure I interpreted all your footnotes correctly. Please also make sure that when I chose to keep the first of the four copies of the draft I didn't inadvertently undo some improvements.

On an unrelated note, the draft reads like an essay, explicitly calls itself one, and seems to be an original synthesis of published sources most of which do not deal with religion's effect on asylums. One is even about "asylum" as in "refuge from prosecution", not "asylum" as in "institution for the mentally ill", and the one that most of the "religion" content is from doesn't mention asylums at all. In summary, the draft seems to contain a heavy dose of original research and probably is not acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knoblauch, Hubert[edit]

hope I did everything alright. It is an article about an professor I met at a conference, I think he has published some noteworthy stuff. I am not very familiar with wikipedia editing, so please be kind about not perfect layout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.107.39 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is correctly submitted, but it doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage or independent reviews of his work published in scholarly journals. We need significant coverage in such sources, both to establish Koblauch's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. The German Wikipedia has an article on him, but it doesn't cite good sources either. Without such sources we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]