Jump to content

User talk:LaMona: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gorgenkor (talk | contribs)
254 edits
No edit summary
Line 1,323: Line 1,323:
:*I'd advise you to begin by adding any new information you have to the article on the [[Two Row Wampum Treaty]]. An existing article is always the place to start. Your article is still primarily about a single event. If you have enough material for a separate article on the efforts to renew the treaty, then treaty renewal could potentially be an article of its own. But the canoe trip is unlikely to be encyclopedic itself, while efforts to renew the treaty could be. (p.s. article name changes can be done at the time of acceptance, or as a "move" function.) [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona#top|talk]]) 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:*I'd advise you to begin by adding any new information you have to the article on the [[Two Row Wampum Treaty]]. An existing article is always the place to start. Your article is still primarily about a single event. If you have enough material for a separate article on the efforts to renew the treaty, then treaty renewal could potentially be an article of its own. But the canoe trip is unlikely to be encyclopedic itself, while efforts to renew the treaty could be. (p.s. article name changes can be done at the time of acceptance, or as a "move" function.) [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona#top|talk]]) 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation. If you wish, we can begin to sketch this out on the talk page of the article [[Talk:Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty]].That is the usual place to discuss changes to an existing article. [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona#top|talk]]) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation. If you wish, we can begin to sketch this out on the talk page of the article [[Talk:Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty]].That is the usual place to discuss changes to an existing article. [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona#top|talk]]) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== 19:42:18, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor ==
{{Lafc|username=Gorgenkor|ts=19:42:18, 15 November 2015|declined=Draft:Canoe_Journey_to_Renew_the_Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty}}

Thanks - I would be glad to work on a short "400th Anniversary" section of the Two Row Wampum article. I'll go to the talk page for that article, to discuss the possibilities...

Revision as of 19:42, 15 November 2015


Rejection of Draft Page for Colin R. Singer

You mentioned that "You may not use social media sites (IMDB)". However, I've sourced the following factual statement using IMDB:

"Singer was Executive Co-Producer of the short film "In Faustian Fashion" starring Zombie Boy which appeared at the 2014 Fantasia International World Film Festival. [10]"

With respect, IMDB is the definitive authority of notability and credit in the entertainment industry. It is not a social media site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Movie_Database — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadhn (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, IMDB is not an authority and is not to be used. Like Wikipedia, IMDB is crowd-sourced and there is no fact-checking on the information. See WP:USERGENERATED which explicitly excludes IMDB. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft Page for Magnatag Visible Systems

Thanks for the feedback LaMona. I appreciate it!

mrp04730

Comments on Draft Page for Walter D. Mooney

Hi LaMona! Thanks very much for your comments on how to improve this article entry. I have removed the references that don't mention him. My reason for putting them in was because I thought I had to have as many references in there as possible, even for the facts that aren't specifically about him. These facts seem necessary in order to describe the work that he has done. I'm just wondering now do I have enough references and is there anything else that needs to be done to it in order for it to be accepted. I've also removed the peacock language, as instructed. Thanks again! Megantfay (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megantfay, your references still do not reflect the basic rules for referencing, which is that information in the article must come from third-party, neutral sources. When you say that "One of the problems associated with the earthquake was the fact that Haiti had no seismograph stations installed, making it impossible to accurately estimate the intensity of the ground motions" and then you cite Mooney's own paper, you are engaging in original research, not reporting what others have said about him. Basically, you are writing the article that, if it were published elsewhere, would be appropriate as a citation in WP. What you are doing is creating his story, and what WP needs is verification that his story has been written. You should concentrate on the facts that support wp:academics and leave everything else out of the article. LaMona (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback LaMona. I've removed a lot of the content as well as the references that don't mention him. I think it (hopefully) meets the reference requirements now! Megantfay (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft Page for John Keeble

Thank you La Mona for your suggestions on the page. Some questions -- (1) You would like to have all the reviews deleted? But a brief plot summary could remain? can reviews or links to journal articles be put in the further reading area?

(2) I understand the tone and can easily change that to fit a more encyclopedic entry.

(3) Can the author's own personal site be used as a source for biography or must I find a source in books and Who Who type entries?

(4) I'm not clear on the comment about "reliable" sources--I used a variety of newspaper, internet, and published sources to link to the awards, reviews, and even biography... are their some in particular you find objectionable?

(5) I asked the author to submit an email to Wikipedia (using the form wikipedia uses) for the picture and give rights for its use -- but I haven't received anything that indicates that was received from Dannae.

Overall, the entry should be biographical, non-interpretative, encyclopedic... How does one introduce themes and styles that academics and reviewers are mentioning?

Finally, I do want to make a title change from John Keeble (writer) to John R. Keeble (writer) to make the distinction between John Keeble (musician) that comes up and because in several internet searches that I've conducted for getting references to awards, etc., it comes up as John R. Keeble. Should this title change be done before resubmission or after? Thank you,

--Newberryr 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)newberryr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newberryr (talk • contribs)

Newberryr - Good questions, all. Reviews become cites to mentions of the books in your article. The author's site is not considered a reliable source of biographical information (the author is NOT a neutral party). Some indisputable facts, like place of birth, may come from there, but it is best to get those facts from third-parties like newspaper articles. Your sources are basically ok - that comment was added by the boilerplate that comes with the decline, unfortunately. The reviews are used as links to the names of the books, and information from the reviews, except for perhaps a brief mention of some absolutely necessary factual information (e.g. "Author was compared to James Joyce by reviewers") is not included. (The praises of reviewers is generally avoided as being promotional, unless criticisms are also included, but this is generally limited to great works of literature, classics.) So, the first sentence of Crab Canyon should stay, the rest should go. All of the books could be covered in a single paragraph, with a sentence for each. Here's what I would keep: "Co-written with Ransom Jeffery, Keeble's second novel was Mine (1974). The two protagonists for this novel are Rag, a young man from Florida, and St. James, a third-generation Iowan who in 1974 are in and out of counter-culture of America. " "Keeble's third novel,Yellowfish(1980; rpt 2008), was a May 1980 Alternate Selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and a June, 1980 Main Selection of the Book Club of Canada." "His novel, Broken Ground (1987; rpt 2010), reveals the moral dilemma of a protagonist involved in the construction of a prison for profit in Eastern Oregon." ... etc. Obviously, your exact wording can vary. As for changing the title, I can try to do that. If I cannot, we can request it from an admin. LaMona (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Comments on Rejection Clarification John R Keeble. Thank you very much for the comments. I will make edits and re-submit. If you could change the name of the article to John R Keeble for me that would be fantastic. --Newberryr 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)newberryr

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iriebeatz (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, I have resubmitted the John Keeble article after following your suggestions above after its rejection. I have an email that shows we have met the copyright concerns for the picture if you need it. also, I still need to have the page title changed from John Keeble, Writer to John R. Keeble, Writer, which you mentioned you might be able to do for me once this is accepted. Thank you again for your assistance. Sorry it took so long to get back to this project!

--Newberryr 01:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)newberryr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newberryr (talk • contribs)

Iriebeatz - a couple of things. First, sign your messages by putting 4 tildes in a row at the end of your message. Second, one of the basic tenets of Wp is be civil. Making accusations, etc. are not appreciated, and could even get you blocked from editing. Third, please understand the AfC process. Nothing has been blocked. AfC is a process, and in each step of the process you get the advice of an editor. You make the changes suggested by the editor, and you re-submit. In particular, my advice to you is that you may not use sales sites (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) as references, which is why I advised that you read through the policy on reliable sources. By reading that, you will understand what references are preferred, and what references should definitely be avoided. In terms of the neutrality of language, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Some examples of non-encyclopedic style in your article are: "Leroy has a natural love for old rhythms..." and "Loving the production business so much...". These need to be reworded, as you'll read about in the style guide, so that they are factual in nature. Another fairly strict Wikipedia rule is that all statements must be referenced. You have entire sections that have no references. If your article goes into main space with these unreferenced sections, other editors can summarily delete them, since unreferenced material in articles about living people are strongly discouraged. So by making these changes, your article will avoid problems when it is moved into the main WP space. LaMona (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok LaMona thanks then. Peace.

Rejection of Draft Page for James O'Connell

Hi LaMona, I just saw your detailed message. Thanks so much! I will make the changes accordingly. Best, Jimaning

Comment on draft page for Augustus Martin

Hi LaMona Thanks for your feedback, that was really helpful. I have changed the references for the Augustus Martin page and added dates, authors and company. I hope this time it passes

Please let me know anything else I need to do

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

Did you know that Wikipedia has its own library? The Wikipedia Library is seeking volunteers from those in galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

Sign up to help here :)

References

A puppy for you!

Golden Retriever puppy

Thanks, LaMona! This is helpful. I've deleted the two Frick references that aren't just links to taped lectures, and edited out the over-exuberant sentence. I'll be very grateful for any other advice you can offer.

(I noticed you already have kittens and thought you might like a broader menagerie!)

Request on 08:53:05, 7 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smartartone100



Smartartone100

Request on 08:55:25, 7 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smartartone100



Smartartone100

19:25:45, 13 October 2015 review of submission by AlonIOD


Thank you for your comments. Hyperconvergence is indeed a new term, but one that is being used more frequently in the IT world. I'm a writer for the cloud computing blog iamondemand.com, and we've lately identified hyperconvergence as a term of growing importance, for instance among CIOs and CTOs.

Check out for instance this article from the Technical University of Athens that describes the evolution of hyperconverged infrastructures: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2802039. Additionally you can view this website devoted to hyperconvergence: http://www.hyperconverged.org/blog/2015/06/02/hyperconvergence-infographic/ I just added both resources to the article.

Please let me know your thoughts, and what changes can be made to make the article more suited for Wikipedia. Thanks, AlonIOD (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlonIOD, the question is if it's "new" or has reached the point of being common usage. More reliable sources that use the term as a primary topic will push it onto the side of notability. Blogs don't support notability, so you'll need peer-reviewed or other reliable sources. One question will be whether "hyperconvergence" is a stand-alone concept or if it is mainly an adjective that modifies other topics. You'll need to demonstrate that it is a topic of its own. It could be tricky, but you'll probably become one of the world's hyperconvergence experts in the process! LaMona (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Hyperconvergence" could be considered an adjective, so I decided to change the title to "Hyper-converged infrastructure" in order to make the matter clearer. This title complements the already existing article Converged infrastructure. Additionally, I added 2 more resources supporting the term from well known analyst firms: IDC and Forrester, along with the essay from the Technical University of Athens. These type of resources seem to me to be similar to the ones existing in the Converged infrastructure article.

Additionally, there are a few existing patents relating to hyperconvergence:

  • Pre-configured hyper-converged computing device[1]
  • Management of a pre-configured hyper-converged computing device [2]
  • Data storage with a distributed virtual array[3]

These are probably not suitable as resources for the article, but they do show that the term is in regular use within the IT world.


Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
AlonIOD (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlonIOD - Yes, the new title makes more sense and ties it to the other titles. You should re-submit, although there is one other change you might want to make first. You have "notes" and "references". Usually, the linked citations are called "references", not "notes". What you have as "notes" -- could that be the same as "Further reading"? If so, you should rename those sections before submitting. LaMona (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LaMona for all your helpful input! I resubmitted the article with your suggestions.

AlonIOD (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Manuel Antonio Vidal Pego

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. What changes are needed to make the article notable? Is this a problem with the lack of notability of the subject itself (so I shouldn't bother to make changes to it) or just a matter of presentation? Also, could you explain what you mean by this "you cannot use WP articles as references, although you can link to them within the text using wp:wikilinks"? Thanks.Fraenir (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraenir, it isn't the article that needs to be notable - it's the TOPIC of the article that needs to be notable. Notability is defined at wp:N - click on that and go to the page. A topic (or person) either is or isn't notable, and if they are not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, then the article cannot be accepted. For Wikilinks: click here wp:wikilinks and you will see how they are done. The wp:Community portal provides many resources to help new editors learn about Wikipedia. You should check that out. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I understand that it's the subject that needs to be notable. I was asking if the article is failing to pass notability due to an inherent lack of notability of the person in question, or due to the way that I've written about the subject. Are you saying that the person isn't notable? The person in question appears, from my perspective, to fulfill "Significant coverage" (book and articles that mention the topic), "Reliable" (includes articles published by major news organizations), "Sources" (multiple sources), "Independent of the subject" (didn't use anything from the person)? If it fails "Presumed", can you explain why the person fails in this case? Can you explain in more detail to me why the person in question fails to be notable? Also, I still don't understannd this comment "you cannot use WP articles as references, although you can link to them within the text using wp:wikilinks" - I checked that page, but I don't understand what I did incorrectly there with regards to my article. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what happened. Sorry. It was the mixing of Template:Harvard_citation_documentation#Shortened_footnote with non-templated references that threw me off. (It's advised to use the same form for all citations on an article, not to mix them. This is something you can fix up later.) I've added sections so it isn't one huge text. I'm a bit nervous because this is a report of criminal behavior for a living person, but let's see how others react when it is in main space. Go ahead and re-submit. LaMona (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I copied some of the citation methods from different Wikipedia articles, so that's probably why my citation methods are mixed. I'll try to fix them later. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:38, 16 October 2015 review of submission by Wordsprite


LaMona, could you please tell me which of my references for my article, "Psychoterratic Illnesses" you consider to be unreliable and why? Also, I saw a note that said I need to use WP style citations: is this also a reason my article was rejected?Wordsprite (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:15:34, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsprite


<! Here is my question, I have two different messages and I'm confused: Are my references not reliable OR is the problem (why my article was rejected) one of citation? Check these out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wordsprite & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Psychoterratic_Illnesses Please click on both and tell me which one is correct and whether the problem is unreliable references or if it’s citation problems. >Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsprite I super-cased the cite numbers in the text so they would stand out as references in the text. Your references, other than the books, do not provide enough information for them to be easily identified and found. I was able to find HealthEarth after some searching but not the article cited; there should be a direct link to the source cited. A primary principle is verifiability, so you need to provide all of the information needed for a person reading WP to go to the source and see for themselves. I also didnt' find source #4. BTW, the Healthearth web site is not considered a reliable source because it is the personal page of the four people who run it. You can add links to the cited sources, such as [4]. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:40:37, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by GroundScope


Hello LaMona

Thank you for reviewing my submission - can you specify what parts of this are unsubstantiated. I have all the references in the article that are available. Kind regards Therese

GroundScope (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GroundScope, if there is information for which you do not have references, then that information cannot be included in the article. (E.g. the entire history section). Also, you have inline http links and those are not allowed. Within the text you link only to Wiki pages; links that go outside Wikipedia are either in references or in the External links section. Also note that your name violates the username policy. You should change it. (You need to request a name change from an admin.) See wp:orgname. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:20, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsprite


This is your message to me that I am responding to because I did not see any "Reply" button on the page where I read the message. I'm repeating your message for clarity, so we are both talking about the same thing. I don't know any other way to do this. Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wordsprite I super-cased the cite numbers in the text so they would stand out as references in the text. Your references, other than the books, do not provide enough information for them to be easily identified and found. I was able to find HealthEarth after some searching but not the article cited; there should be a direct link to the source cited. A primary principle is verifiability, so you need to provide all of the information needed for a person reading WP to go to the source and see for themselves. I also didnt' find source #4. BTW, the Healthearth web site is not considered a reliable source because it is the personal page of the four people who run it. You can add links to the cited sources, such as [1]. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question: In order for me to see what you're referring to I need to know how to get to the page where you did all the stuff you said you did in the above message. How would I do that?

It's on my talk page. Click on "talk" after my name here: LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: If I get to the page where I can see all the stuff you helped me with, that you refer to in your message, what do I do then? Do I have to go to another page? If so, what page and how would I get there. Right now, on this page that I am typing on, this is what I am seeing at the top: "User page" "Talk" "Read" "Edit Source" "New Section" "View history" a red heart, a blue star, and a "Search" box. Can I get to the page I need to get to in order to see what you did by typing something in the "Search" bar----will the "Search" bar help me find my Draft or whatever other page I may need to find?

To see what changes have been made (although many are obvious just looking at the article) go to the "View history" tab, click in the circles to the left of the latest and the previous one, and then click on the button "Compare versions." This will show you what has changed. All versions of all WP articles are kept. However, all that I changed was that I made the numbers of the references in the text superscript so they would look different from other numbers in the text. Another option would be to put them in parentheses. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: What is "super-cased the cite numbers" ? In your original message to me (not the above copied and pasted one for reference), there was a tiny blue symbol where the [1] is in this copied and pasted version above. This is the line I'm talking about from your message: You can add links to the cited sources, such as [1]. What does that mean?

Did you click on it? It's a link. You should see that it's a link by its color. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Now, I need to be able to figure out what to do next, specifically, what do I click on to do whatever it is I need to do next, from this page that I am typing on. Once I leave this page, I will not be able to get back to this message (or your message) or my Draft (what do I click on to find that?). If I had not copied and pasted your message into a separate word document and then copied and pasted it into this one, I would not have known how to refer to the parts of your message to me that I need help with.

Wiki has a very complex, difficult, and confusing format for me to use. I don't know computer code. I don't know a lot of the abbreviated language that's used or the computer phraseology that's used in Wiki's explanation of things. I need straightforward directions. For instance, what does this mean: ... Wiki's instructions, pages, and formatting is filled with strings of symbols like this and as I said, I don't understand computer code. Seeing these things along with complex instructions on how to do anything on Wiki, only detracts from my being able to discern what exactly it is that Wiki is asking for or instructing me in.

You'll have to learn about Wikipedia, and there is plenty to help you. You can start by clicking the link in the left side bar that says "About Wikipedia." LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all of that, I need to talk to a live person, by phone, while I am on my computer so that when I click on something that brings me to someplace I can't get back from or that proves to be off the track from what I need, I can explain it: what I am seeing, what the choices are on the screen, so I can figure out Wiki's website and be able to use it.

That's not likely to happen here. You could take your questions to the Community portal (link also in the left side bar), and ask for individual help, but Wikipedia assumes that you at least know how to click on links and read web pages. If you need basic computer training, you may want to look for computer training in your local community - perhaps an adult school or a public library. Some communities actually hold beginning Wikipedia editing sessions in public places, like libraries. That's the kind of place where you might get the help you need. All of us here are "virtual". LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. If possible, is there just a straightforward email (that is separate from Wiki) where I can contact you, free from computer code and providing just the simple "Send" and "Reply" buttons so we can communicate. If not, and if you get this message (I'm unsure I'm doing the right things here so I don't know where this is going to end up), but if you do get this, when you Reply to me, please include very clear, very straightforward instructions for how I can Reply back to you. Please do not include computer code in the instructions or any symbols (like the little blue symbol in your last message to me, that I referred to earlier) because if I don't understand everything in the message, I won't be able to respond.

The little blue symbols are links. If you put your mouse pointer over it, it shows you what it links to. However, it won't show when you copy the text to a Word document. You have to view the links on the Wiki page; don't copy the text elsewhere. I can't get any more basic than that. Clicking on links is a basic skill that you need to have if you will edit Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your patience and understanding. Please know that I am not blaming you for the fact that the Wiki website for public use is so complicated and complex. I just need some real, plain-speak answers. I want to edit my Draft (if I can find it and if I can figure out how to do that) because it is important to me to get it accepted. But I am so lost - it's like trying to find your way home from a foreign country when you've never traveled before, don't know the systems involved with doing that, don't know where to find the information because the way to look it up is filled with rules and an assumed knowledge of how the system operates, and when you do ask the right questions to connect to the answer you need the answer contains information that's in another language you don't speak so you try to look up those words but can't because there is no English To (fill in the blank with a foreign language) book. And that is where I am. Wiki is a foreign country with little or no translations of the things you need to know and be able to understand in order to figure something out. Help me get home. WordspriteLaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsprite (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:22:45, 17 October 2015 review of submission by Prak nat


This has been a very long process for us. We have been working on this edit for over 8 months now and each revision has brought with it a different reason for being declined. For the writer who knows the non-profit and the work it does, it has been difficult to recognize what comes across as puffery. Would truly appreciate it if you could highlight the lines or the text that do not conform to standards so that the next edit becomes easier.

We only get one category option, even if we think that more than one category applies, so you often aren't getting the whole sense of the reviewer. I went through and changed some of the language, but the article still reads like a description of the program from the point of view of the program, not based on available sources. This is why we recommend that people NOT create articles for their own organizations. For a WP article, you are supposed to base the article on available sources, not what you know about the organization. A person unrelated to the organization would not be able to include un-sourced information (e.g. all of the information about the programs, which probably doesn't appear in sources about the organization). So what you've written is the organization's view of itself, not the organization as seen by neutral third parties. This is a general misunderstanding about the role of Wikipedia -- it is not a directory of organizations, but a gathering of encyclopedic (and public) knowledge. Your article has been rejected mainly because it is not encyclopedic. To be so, much of it would have to be deleted (e.g. everything that is not sourced to a third-party neutral source). I could make those edits if you wish. At that point, it would pass notability. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks Farhankhalid87 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:03:57, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Qkeddy


Hi - I am not sure why this article being proposed for submission keeps getting the "not notable" issue. First off Star Analytics introduced an important technology for the ability to provide proprietary Oracle data in an open standard format for other technology vendors to use and leverage. In the enterprise software world this is very important and IBM recognized this and acquired the company Star Analytics. In 2013, Star Analytics was one of four acquisitions made by IBM. There are other Wikipedia articles about other software companies such as "Hyperion" that were acquired and are no longer in existence and had a major impact on changing the landscape of Enterprise Software. As for references, there are several independent references cited in this article about Star Analytics and the value that Star Analytics' technology brought to the enterprise software landscape. We respectfully request that you please review this again.

Qkeddy (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qkeddy (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:21:50, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ilonam23


Hi I see you have rejected my page because you say the references have been generated by the subject. They articles written by journalists about the subject, they've not been written by the subject. Could you please advise how I can improve this?

Thank you

Ilonam23 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilonam23, if you read the message I left, the problem is that many of the articles are not about the company -- they are about events, with a mention of the company. Mentions are not enough to establish notability, and there need to be articles about the company itself. If those don't exist, then the company does not meet WP's notability standard. LaMona (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, OK thank you. I will try to find some other links that are hopefully more suitable. Ilonam23 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:59, 19 October 2015 review of submission by 27.32.138.183


Hi Lamona, I've made a number of changes to the article that you rejected. I hope that this responds to the issues in a sufficient way. If not, can you specify the particular places that remain insufficient? Thank you.

Your article must conform to notability for academics. Please read that carefully. The person must meet one or more of the main criteria listed there. You still have 1) large sections that are not referenced and therefore do not come from third-party sources 2) references to writings BY him, not ABOUT him. You must remove all of the unsourced material. The fact that you have unsourced material probably means that you are too close to the subject of the article and are not taking your information from third-party sources. All information must be neutral and verifiable. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:16:11, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ninskip


Hi,

I think there are a couple of issues here, firstly if I was doing a research project on Reinsurance I would want a sound and unbiased source of information relating to reinsurance companies - that could be now, or in one hundred years time (if it was for historical reseach pruposes). Possibly there may be no reinsurance, but we'd never be around to know. Secondly the comparison to Lloyds is not exactly comparing apples to apples, Lloyds being a collection of different entities operating under the same governance structure. A better comparison is TransRe to Swiss Re, obviously the TransRe group has not been in existance for as long Swiss, but I can't see how that makes them more or less notable or potentailly significant in the furture.

Finally I note there are millions of company profiles on WP (surrounding many different industries), surely many of these could be construed as adverts?

I would appricate some asistance on how we can make our article less like an advert and more like an "WP article" given that TransRe's life span (although 40 or more years) does not seem to be able to provide suffient material to warrant inclusion.

Many thanks,

Neil.

Ninskip (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninskip, you may need to accept that the company does not meet WP's standards for an article. Right, your company is not Lloyd's, and Lloyd's definitely meets the standard. The topic of reinsurance is covered in WP if people need to know about that. WP is not a company directory. If people want to find reinsurance companies in their locale, there are directories that can help them. Yes, many of the company profiles do read as adverts, and they do come up at Articles for Deletion. WP is a constantly changing resource. But adding more adverts isn't going to make it better. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:56, 19 October 2015 review of submission by PinkBlueGreenPowder


Hi LaMona, the submission has been edited to include more information to demonstrate the notability of Gigamon and includes many more third-party sources. Is this more what you are looking for? Happy to edit further with some more direction if anything remains insufficient. Thanks! PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PinkBlueGreenPowder, after you make edits, you should resubmit it for another review. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, thank you. The draft has been resubmitted. PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on review of the Parables TV article

LaMona, thank you for reviewing the article submission for Parables TV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV) I will edit the article per your recommendations, but first can you please clarify if you want me to add new sources to the ones I already have vs. deleting any of them. A few of the sources are published works from BeliefNet and Charisma which are well known in Christian media circles, while others are published by lesser known but well read industry sources in the same genre. Can you please clarify why these sources are not considered reliable so that I can correct or improve this article? If these are not considered reliable, I am somewhat confused by which kind of sources I need to find. Thank you for your directionLG Brichetto (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LG Brichetto, whether or not Beliefnet and OneNewsNow are reliable sources is something we would need to take up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard although it may just be best to analyze the articles individually rather than making a blanket decision. The one you point to has a byline of "Posted by..." which sounds more like a blog than a news organization. The criteria we use for similar sites, e.g. Huffington Post, is to evaluate articles individually. This one is no more than a product announcement, with no analysis, so it's low on the scale. Charisma news has an editorial board of 2, which makes it an iffy source. The BusinessWire article has no byline and reads like a press release, giving the company contact at the end (typical of press releases). So your sources are weak. Also, the mere fact of being a streaming service is not enough to Wikipedia notability. There has to be some inherent encyclopedic value, which I do not see. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona. I have resubmitted the article draft for Parables TV. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV). I added 12 new sources, several of which should meet Wikipedia's criteria for 'reliable sources'. I also added some new data gleaned from the new sources. Please advise if these improvements meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you.LG Brichetto (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Game Manufacturing (possible COI)

I don't think I have a COI with Draft:Panda Game Manufacturing. I don't have any affiliation with, am not paid by, and have no possible gain from Panda but I have used their services.

Thanks in advance for your help sorting out this possible COI issue. I am new to editing on wikipedia but I am really enjoying contributing. In particular I'm really proud of the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company draft and I hope it see the light of day. Would you be so kind as to answer a few questions?

I do have a COI on the page Draft:Cartography_(board_game) and possible on Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps. Ten years ago I worked at Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps but no longer have any ties with them. I have no affiliation with the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company except that Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps was eventually located on the same property.

  1. Does using a services of a company constitute a COI?
  2. What else needs to be added to the Draft:Panda Game Manufacturing draft to allow it to be created?
  3. What else needs to be added to the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company draft to allow it to be created?
  4. Can a page be created in draft form when there is a COI if another editor publishes it?
  5. Does previous employment by a company constitute a COI?
  6. Does previous employment by a company located on a property later used by a company constitute a COI?

I hope this brings clarity and transparency. Thank you for your time, Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon.opus, thanks for answering. Past employment generally isn't considered a COI issue, nor does use of a service. If you do have a COI, you can create a draft, but should not edit the page when it goes to main space (with the exceptions you see on the COI page, like vandalism). For any true COI, you need to include a statement on the talk page of the article, as per the COI guidelines.
As for the Panda Game article (I haven't looked at the lumber company one), you need stronger references, as I said in my note. Hobbyist sites, blogs, informal sources are not considered reliable. If those do not exist, you might want to find a page (or more than one) on WP where the information can be added, such as on the page for one of the games. More resources may be published later, at which time a stand-alone article would be warranted. LaMona (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, Thanks so much for your help! That really clears things up for me. One more question. For the COI draft I have should I include the statement in the talk page now or if/when it goes to the main space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jon.opus, it's always good to include the COI on all of the work, even drafts. It helps reviewers understand the situation. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:22, 21 October 2015 review of submission by NataschaEssl


Dear LaMona, I have seen that my draft for the ZeroProject was rejected again. This is the first time that I am creating an article in Wikipedia, so I beg your padon for resubmitting although I haven't changed the sources of the articles. But I can't figure out what I shall change, because the sources are reliable (see United Nations, EASPD, GAATES, DRPI etc.). Could it be the case that I have refereced too often to the "zero Project homepage" itself? I thank you in advance for your advice! Best regads, Natascha

It was rejected again because you hadn't changed the sources, even though you were asked to. The problem with the sources is that you have used the site of the organization itself as a reference. This is not allowed (with some rare exceptions). All information has to come from reliable third parties. If you cannot source information from third-party sources, then that information must be removed from the article (it can be added back in if sources appear).
All references have to be ABOUT the subject. That means that you do not include a reference for the home page of the Essi foundation, since that page has nothing about the ZeroProject. Do not reference the organization's own publications -- those can be included in a section called "external links". If you remove all of the inappropriate references, you are left with very little. That an organization has a "successful" conference is not encyclopedic. You need to find other sources, such as newspaper or journal articles, that give information about the organization. LaMona (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Wesleyan Assurance Society page

Hello. I notice that my draft page created for Wesleyan Assurance Society was rejected yesterday to to 'notability'. I have added an additional info box to the draft and looked at the pages of many smaller financial companies that seem to have been accepted. My WP has far more citations and I was hoping recent additions would make it clear of the society's reach and size? As the society has more than 100,000 members and assets of £6 billion pounds, I was wondering what I need to do to make it deemed notable? Any additional help or feeddback would be welcomed. Especially around citations etc. The society does a lot of work for the children's hospital, hence me wanting to create this page. I also have several doctor friends who can't believe that they don't have a page. Thank you for taking the time to view my draft and for any feedback. Inquasionable (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquasionable most companies, and most doctors, do not meet WP's criteria for notability. That you see articles in WP that look like yours does not mean that they are correct. See other stuff exists. Read wp:corp carefully. Doing business, creating partnerships, changing management, or having the CEO receive a prize does not confer notability on the company. It may be that this company is notable, but it would be hard to dig through the references to find that. You need to reduce the article to those things that make it notable. Among the things you should not include (from the wp:corp page) are: "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Once you remove all of those, then we can see what the article looks like. Also do not include references to other companies (e.g. Pinsent Masons) in this article. Those references do not create notability for the subject of the article. You also have facts that are not sourced. All information in the article must come from third-party neutral sources. Unsourced information must be removed (although it can be added later if sources appear). LaMona (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the reply. This was my first attempt at a page and I am trying very hard to get it right. Apologies if there is a lot wrong with it. I know that it is notable but I am struggling to get that across so will keep trying and amending. I thought the Pinsent Masons bit may be of interest but will take that out. Do you think I have perhaps been too eager and added too many things? And does my recent additions of the infobox (I'll add citations) and NASUWT approval etc improve its chances of being accepted? Thank you for the speedy reply!! Inquasionable (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquasionable it is not the quality of the article that determines notability, although a good-looking article that is fairly complete is going to get a more favorable review. Notability is determined entirely by meeting the criteria set out for notability in Wikipedia's policies. Either the organization is notable or it isn't -- your job is to find the sources that support notability. LaMona (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:58, 22 October 2015 review of submission by 173.61.14.26


Hi, thanks to the editor for the helpful pointers about how to improve the entry. Detailed elaboration and plenty of citations have been added this article. Is it in good shape now? Thanks very much for any feedback.

Read through wp:rs, the policies on reliable sources. You shouldn't be summarizing her writings -- that is considered original research -- and you can't use her own writings as references. References need to be from neutral third parties. That means that you probably will not give much detail about her academic work in the article unless others have written about her. If you look at what is needed for notability of academics you see that you need to emphasize career accomplishments (awards, key academic positions, etc.). Rather than saying: "Discussions of her work have appeared in The New York Times, Wired Magazine, Humanity+, Big Think, 3 Quarks Daily, Discover Magazine, Science Magazine, Motherboard, Slate (France), Popular Mechanics, and more.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" the article should use information from those discussions, not from her own writings. Also, I looked at some of those links. In one Humanist article, she is mentioned in a comment -- that is not a suitable reference. To be a reference, the article has to be primarily or significantly about her. Don't cite minor or inappropriate sources. Unfortunately, her book, Language of Thought, shows only 34 cites on Google Scholar, which is not very strong. Perhaps you can find other indications of academic status? (Just being a full professor is not enough.) LaMona (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:56:23, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mjwill46


Thank you for the feedback. I'll make the suggested changes and resubmit. That's reason I'm trying to be very careful to go this route as sometimes blind spots come up in the language and things veer into unintended directions. Thanks again.

Mjwill46 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:08:38, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tigerbeat20


Dear LaMona,

Please be more specific regarding your comments in rejecting my page on Nick Gromicko. The facts about him and the organization he founded--InterNACHI--are found primarily on that site (www.NACHI.org). What else are you looking for so that this page will be approved? It stood for many years without interference until recently, so I rewrote it to delete any potentially objectionable content, and now I can't get it approved, despite his being quoted in several well-known newspapers, publications and websites, as noted. So, I need more specific guidance about your objections so that I can rectify what seem to be new issues that were not a problem earlier.

Thank you. Tigerbeat20 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:38, 22 October 2015 review of submission by Tigerbeat20


LaMona has not provided any clarity as to her reasons for rejecting this article. The links she cited offer no help. "Each and every fact must be verified" is non-specific. Her remark that being quoted in notable publications (which this person has been, in many such publications, including the NYT) does not confer notability actually makes no sense. (Why would he be regularly sought out for a quote if he's not a notable person?)

I need more specific guidance from LaMona, or I would like another editor to review the page and provide specific feedback. Thank you.

Rather than me being more specific, you need to do the reading that I gave you: wp:rs, wp:cite and wp:mos. That he founded an organization does not meet the notability standards, much less wp:blp. Being quoted does not confer notability. It's all spelled out in the policies, but you have to read them. No one is going to do your work for you. You have homework to do. LaMona (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:41, 23 October 2015 review of submission by Palacenewmedia


Thank you for reviewing the article. 5 of the 10 references cited are completely third party, while the other five substantiate information given. When I look at a page such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ice which has almost no information, citations or references (besides a long bibliography), I am left scratching my head. How is this Thomas Ice person "notable" and how is this article following the "golden rule" and yet is was approved? I can certainly find a lot more info, but I would hate to go through all of that work only to have it declined again. Any clarification would be helpful. So far there seems to be an inconsistency when I look at other "people" pages (such as the example I gave you above). And yet mine keeps getting declined. (And here I thought I had this all figured out on my last edit. Haa!!!)

  • See wp:otherstuffexists. That there are articles that seem to be less notable does not mean that they meet the requirements. Every day about 100 articles are deleted from WP for not meeting the guidelines. As for your article, the only references that are about him are not third-party or are not reliable sources. #1 is not a third-party source, it's the site of his church #2 is Amazon, not usable because a sales site #3 is a blog (not usable, not a reliable source) #4 him speaking, not about him #5 doesn't mention him #6 his own site #7 references a self-published book, not a reliable source #8 doesn't mention him #9 a quote and a mention (not enough for notability) #10 Schimmel talking about Bieber, but not about Schimmel. The conclusion is: not one reliable reference that can support notability. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:00:11, 23 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kacey3


I am obviously having a hard time determining how to show notability. The help text says to try using more citations, which I did. I nearly tripled the number citations from my first submission to the second. I have looked at similar individuals in the field and found examples with far fewer citations who have been approved, so I am not sure what to look for as an example of a successful article.

I have worked to find third party reputable sources - local and national news and media - to illustrate the notability of this up and coming critic. He has been flagged as "someone to watch" by several news outlets and is a member of several prestigious critic commissions.

Any assistance on improving my article would be greatly appreciated.

Kacey3 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number of citations isn't the answer, it's the quality of citations that matter. "Someone to watch" means that this is someone who has not yet "made it." One is eligible for Wikipedia only after "making it," as evidenced by sources. LaMona (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That helps. I will see if I can dig up some more relevant and concrete resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kacey3 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:47, 24 October 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor

Thanks for reviewing my article.  I've focused on the 2013 canoe journey, but meant to show it not just as a single event, also as a beginning to ongoing efforts that it has inspired.    The article in the Atlantic Monthly ("The Iroquois are Not Giving Up") describes how the journey was intended to begin a grassroots movement. The messages from the UN session, the Onondaga Nation's new legal appeal to the OAU,  and the Canadian campaign next summer are good examples of its influence.  I plan to edit the article to  show how the journey's goal was to  revive the Two Row treaty and start to apply it as the basis for new campaigns. Would that address the concerns expressed?  Thanks again for your helpful comments and insight.
It's going to be hard to turn the event into a WP article. It would be more encyclopedic to focus on the outcomes and not the event itself, and for that it may be too soon. If a grassroots movement does grow, then that movement might merit an article, and the event could be described in the history section. If, some years from now, this event is seen as the beginning of something important, then the event might merit an article of its own. As of today, it's a news story and perhaps a beginning, but to be in WP it needs to have made it into history. You might look for current articles where this event could be included as an example of activism. LaMona (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Howie

Thank you for reviewing this draft. Would you please delete it?--Mehlauge (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that if you blank the page it will be deleted. If that doesn't work, you can place this at the top of the page in edit mode: {{subst:prod|requested by creator}}. LaMona (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super-5

  • Don't Delete It is really strange for me while reading your comments which says that real references while reference already shared. Who are part of Super-5 team have mentioned their comments. Its really feel bad when legends talk like this. Promotion of any program requires money investment. Neither Super-5 team is taking any money from candidates nor they are investing money on promotions. They are just spreading this using words of mouth. I am using Wiki since my childhood and for any kind of new or advance info I referred and believe on Wikipedia. Tell me whether everyone should know about this that there is a program in this world for those jobless candidates who are fighting with their selves to live properly without any money. I am in touch with Super-5 Mentors team, I have seen their efforts and hard work without having any personal benefits with this program. They are burning their lives for jobless candidates so that they can get a job and candidates lives can be saved. Is it bad to save lives? Is it bad to give or provide money support to jobless? Is it bad to help students to grab a job without taking any fees? We respect Wiki Rules and Regulation and really do not want to break Wiki rules, just we all are asking a favor and help from Wiki teams to support us so that this program can be reached to everyone who is jobless and out of money. Exceptions exist everywhere and we are requesting to Wiki Team to please give a chance to Super-5 team to be on WIKI. Below is the link of Super-5 program in IeQue. http://www.ieque.com/super-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachans9 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:52, 25 October 2015 review of submission by Alessandraronemus


Hi, I've done the citations in an extensive fashion, and a lot of elaboration has been added, in light of your helpful suggestions. Do things look good now? Pardon any duplicate notes. Some computer gitches occurred. Thank you very much.


@Alessandraronemus: That's better. Now you need to remove the original research from the article. OR is when you use primary sources for information in the article, in this case writings by the subject of the article. So when you say: "Schneider has framed a new version of the language of thought (“LOT”) approach.[14]" and you cite her work, you are the one making that decision about her work. Instead, in Wikipedia, all facts must come from secondary sources -- that is, you have to find a reliable news article or journal article by someone other than the subject that gives that analysis or makes that statement; and that needs to be a source that has undergone editorial or peer review. Otherwise, anyone could say anything about anyone on WP, which would not be encyclopedic. See reliable sources. If there are not reliable sources for certain statements, then those statements must be removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:54:43, 26 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by TCVCJ

I have already left one message about this - maybe on the wrong page. I've never been this frustrated in my life - perhaps I'm just not up to today's standard of navigating certain systems! It seems to me that disorginization is a part of our problem - I realize you are all volunteers, but I assume you enjoy what you do! Are you ever called upon to understand the fustration of new users of Wikipedia and consent to stay with one customer until he or she can get an article done, even if it takes a long time? I do not understand your system of just anyone who comes by being able to review at random! I'm sure my age has something to do with all this - I was a bookkeeper, secretary, researcher, and clerk long before computers came on the scene - however I have navigated that road for "nigh on to" 50 years now and have been able to get to my destination eventually. I'm not convinced that will be the case this time! You will note that you have accepted 3 or 4 articles from me - after a great deal of editing and adding and desk fist pounding on my part and I'm sure on yours. When my boss said, "I'd like to get articles on these six entities on Wikipedia, please," I said I would try. That was more than 4 months ago and I still have 3 on the list! Am I asking for help on the right page? What else can I do? Thank you again, whoever is reading this, for your help!TCVCJ (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


TCVCJ (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCVCJ, In fact you are getting help that you should appreciate, and you will get less by showing your lack of appreciation for those helping. Nearly all of the links on the article are broken. For example, the link for the Arts Magazine should be http://artsmagazine.info/articles.php?view=detail&id=2010101119561674739. For anyone to review the article the links must be correct. Please check each one and provide the correct link. Next, you say that your boss asked you to create these articles. Who do you work for, and are you doing this as part of your job? If so, please read carefully policies on conflict of interest and take the appropriate steps. LaMona (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:53:50, 26 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by EtudeInE


Joseph A. Yanny is notable for his precedent setting cases on notable issues. The proposed entry was roughly based on the format of the Howard Weitzman and David Boies Wikipedia entries. Since the proposed Yanny article takes the same format as these two entries, what specific changes are you suggesting to make the article acceptable? For example these two articles list notable clients and cases as well. Also, the published cases used as references refer to Yanny as the attorney in the notable case. Thank you

EtudeInE (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EtudeInE (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on WP must be shown by independent, third-party, reliable sources ABOUT the person that provide the information for the article. Cites in legal cases are not ABOUT the person. You need to find articles ABOUT him that provide info you can use to create an article. What you have here is called original research -- you are using primary sources to support notability. The secondary sources that are here mention him but are not ABOUT him. They are about the legal cases, and would support an article on those legal cases, but not on the person. Quotes from a person (e.g. the Press Telegram) do not support notability. See reliable sources and notability and biographies of living persons. The TMZ article does not mention him and MUST be removed as inappropriate. Look through the David Boies article and you will see that there are references about him, e.g. #s 4, 6, 16, 23. Being profiled in Time Magazine, NY Times and Businessweek is what supports notability for Boies. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli Center

Hello,

You declined the draft on Benoulli Center. As far as I can tell, the Center (and its notability) are very parallel to its "twin" in the sister institution ETHZ, namely the Institute for Mathematical Research.

For reference, some more institutions that are very comparable are, for instance, the Mittag-Leffler Institute and the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics.

The draft that you declined seems to be equally as well sourced as all of the the bona fide articles linked to above.

I don't have the available time to do more on this, I was just hoping to fill an obvious gap in the articles on this kind of institutes. It is a pity if you decline it in contradiction with the acceptance of the above articles.

Over and out from me :-) 128.178.14.87 (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: added a section. As a matter of fact, the other articles linked to above seem to contain less references, not more.128.178.14.87 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every day hundreds of WP articles are slated for deletion because they do not meet the standards. So that an article exists today may mean that it has not been noticed. LaMona (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knew WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; my point was different: I believe that the sourcing is sufficient, and illustrate this belief by the other examples given. You may want to check those, or perhaps most of the Category:Mathematical_institutes before forming your opinion on the specific case of the Bernoulli Center.

If indeed you come to the conclusion that all these research institutions should not be in this encyclopedia, it would be far more coherent to slate them all for deletion. Would you like to do that? are you suggesting I do it? would that be for the common good?

No, the sourcing is not sufficient by Wikipedia guidelines. The point is that better sourcing is needed. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...the answer to my question being? 128.178.14.87 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find more sources and add them to the article. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my question...

Anyway, I give up on this draft. Also, I won't suggest the others for deletion (to answer my own question) since obviously these institutes all have more than enough notability and it would be a disservice to the community to apply to them the same mistaken standards ...

Hope someone else take up the work. Enjoy.

128.178.14.87 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

128.178.14.87 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:42, 28 October 2015 review of submission by 41.242.137.2



Hi La Mona, hello from Ghana. Does that mean I have to erase all the wikipedia/you tube references? (as well as adding third party ones?)

09:23:03, 28 October 2015 review of submission by 41.242.137.2



Hi La Mona, hello from Ghana. Does that mean I have to erase all the wikipedia/you tube references? (as well as adding third party ones?)

Yes, it would be good to remove those references and replace them with third-party ones. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:12:29, 28 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Writerlauren


Hi there,

Can you specifically tell me which parts need to be worked on to read less like an advertisement? I will work on adding wiki sources to this page, as well as the links already existing. Thanks for your help! Writerlauren (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writerlauren (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on childhood obesity is not about the Camp. That could, instead, be a sentence in the section on the creation of the camp. Statements like "Tony Sparber can directly relate to the kids he hopes to help" and "Tony Sparber created Camp Pocono Trails to make combating childhood obesity fun, safe, and effective" read like a brochure or advertisement, not as a factual encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nicholson page

LaMona- Thank you for the detailed feedback, your suggestions make sense. I am beginning a rewrite and will revise the page according to specifications. Once it is completed, can I notify you for review to accept/reject? I would like to have you edit the rewrite if at all possible as I'm going by your suggestions. Thanks for you time!

VanceJordan (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can ping me here when you re-submit for review, but I cannot guarantee that I'll have the time at that moment to review it. I will try. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:52, 28 October 2015 review of submission by Npa2230


Thank you so much for reviewing it! I really strongly appreciate your opinion, but i think would need a little bit of a help here. As a new person i just would like to understand exactly which part in this article sounds like an advertising, so i can edit it. Can you please point that parts out? The problem is that her success and notability is in the work of her life, which is her company. One inspiring story of one very successful woman, that actually became someone, whos brand (that is her last name) today people know from USA to Australia, all due to her hard work. I can't really separate her from her company. Isn't it inspiring for any woman, just to know that it is possible? Please help me to redo it in acceptable for wikipedia way. The links i provided 1 is her official site, another is her official blog, the rest is all independent and i hope credible enough sources (inc500's website...or Smartfem's Magazine website, or Alice Cooper's website, or the rest... aren't they independent or credible enough for wikipedia?).

First, please read about reliable sources to understand what type of sources you need to support the article. For example, you cannot cite Wikipedia articles (although you can wp:wikilink to them), nor her own site, nor her bio on sites for places she works (Alice Cooper's personal site). Every fact in the article must be supported by a link to a reliable source. Then, as for advertising, you say things like "She is known for her view that skin care, cosmetics and also products for babies should be based on clean and natural ingredients that work together and made with the love to the earth and animals." and "Recently Cherylanne developed the Absolute Minerals™ mineral makeup and Oh My DeVita Baby, a selection of vegan all natural products for babies." Those statements sound like a PR brochure. If you do include statements like that, they must come from a third-party, independent source, NOT her promotional site. LaMona (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:53:26, 29 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jogi don


Thanks, I am asking for assistance because I have not found any lead story about Hidaya Foundation yet, might be it can be find someone other users, might be published in USA and else where, so I need their assistance in this regard to find citations , references of books, news, newspaper for Hidaya Foundation , and also expand this article so it can be soon shifted from draft to a full fledge article. .........Jogi 007 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask this at the Teahouse. I did a quick look and didn't find much, but others may be more skilled. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality on approving content on Wikipedia

I have taken reference from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahindra_Lifespace_Developers to create a similar page from the same industry and same business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indiabulls_Real_Estate_Limited_%28IBREL%29. How can the page be live for them with just 1 citation link? How is my topic not notable in comparison them? I am ready to find and add more citations (secondary as well). Would appreciate if you could clear my this doubt here.Chints247 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see wp:otherstuffexists. Pages that do not meet the criteria can come up for deletion, and about 100 pages per day are deleted for this reason. That a page exists on WP that does not meet the criteria does not change the criteria, it means it hasn't come to the attention of scrutinizing editors. That article may not have gone through articles for creation because some editors create articles directly in main space. This means a lot of cleanup for others. Please read wp:corp to see the criteria for businesses on WP. With that you may be able to seek specific types of references. Also look at what does not meet notability, such as directory-type listings (Money control, Economic times). These merely confirm that a company exists. You can cite them and take information from them for the article, but they don't support notability. Mentions, rather than articles about the company, also do not support notability. (Business standard) What you need to show is that your company has been the subject of an article in a major source. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:27, 29 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LMJones81


Hi LaMona, I'm slightly confused as to why you considered the sources in my submitted Wikipedia entry 'Centre for Justice' as being unreliable - is it that these particular articles would be considered opinion orientated? Or is it that I have cited these incorrectly in some way? Any further explanation you could provide me and assistance in getting this right, would be very much appreciated. Many thanks,


LMJones81 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page on reliable sources. That should explain it LaMona (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now that I typed my comment badly on the AfC - that should say "As a founder of the center" -- you must use only independent sources, and the founder of the center cannot be considered a neutral, independent source. LaMona (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:16, 29 October 2015 review of submission by 71.227.168.23


Hi. I am Martha Brockenbrough, the subject of the potential page. My creation, National Grammar Day, has a page. I am cited by Wikipedia in several articles as a source.

My most recent YA novel was a finalist for one of the largest prizes in all of literature.

Why is this not notable? Do you have a bias against children's literature? Are you aware that it is the most robust segment in publishing?

Further, I have spoken as an expert at national conferences for writers, educators, and librarians. I have been interviewed by The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and more. My writing has been in The New York Times and other publications. Perhaps someone should add those references as well. I can, if you'd like. It's all factual, though this sort of information seems of less interest to the kids on Wikipedia trying to look me up for their book reports.

Men in my field with fewer books and/or less critical acclaim have them. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Beaudoin; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Emerson; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Berk

I have questions for you. You identify as a librarian. What sort of librarian? Where? Can you please prove your credentials? Which pages have you approved--not just created? What is the ratio of men to women in pages you have approved and declined?

The continued pushback screams of sexism. I'd love to give you the opportunity to prove otherwise.

71.227.168.23 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, read wp:autobiography. You should not be creating a WP page for yourself. Note that I am a librarian and very much in support of reading, so accusing me of biases is quite inappropriate, and what you say above violates one of the main tenets of Wikipedia, which is assume good faith. Your accusations here could result in your account being blocked. We take this good faith assumption very seriously. The criteria for Wikipedia articles are spelled out in a series of policy statements. The primary ones for you (after you find someone with a neutral point of view to create a page for you) reliable sources and general notability. That you write for journals or have been interviewed does not confer notability. Notability is determined by what others have said about you. So you need to find book reviews or articles about the subject that show that the subject of the WP article has achieved a certain amount of attention from reliable sources. Reliable sources must be independent of the subject, therefore no self-sites, not the person's own writings. Note that articles about National Grammar Day are not articles about you; they are articles about National Grammar Day. Your article has been rejected 8 times by 6 different editors. Clearly you are frustrated. However, rather than lash out, you might begin to understand that there is indeed a problem with your article meeting WP criteria. I actually think that if the article focused more on the YA writing, dropped the unsourced info (where "citation needed" is written), and followed WP policies on autobiographies, then it could well pass. It would be good, however, to find book reviews in YA sources, Kirkus, Booklist, PW, etc. to back up the claims. The awards should be separated out into their own section to emphasize them. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, talking about killing the goose that lays the golden egg, some time back I had actually done research for you and added a half dozen good references on the talk page that you could use. You haven't used them. As the reviewer who took the time to help you with your research, your accusations above now look even more unwarranted. You are not doing yourself any favors here. Use those references, and the article might pass. Sheesh! LaMona (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


70.89.120.57 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Martha Brockenbrough again. I did not create the page. I did add to it. I understand the policy, and only did this out of exasperation. The policy is also beside the point of an encyclopedia. Factuality should be the goal, and original sources with independent verification are defensible in academic situations. The original author could have added those links you provided. Thank you for those, sincerely.

This page has been rejected many times by people who are not experts in the field, most of whom appear to be men; determining credentials and potential blind spots is difficult with Wikipedia's editor profile pages.

I am glad you hear my frustration on this topic, but do not think the issue of bias has been addressed, and it's certainly one that is getting negative media attention for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter to me if I'm banned for not being sufficiently "nice," or for failing to assume sufficient good intentions; at this point I'm making my judgment on facts and not assumptions.

The central fact: Men in my field with less critical acclaim and/or fewer books have Wikipedia pages that are similarly sourced. I do not.

Also, I am compelled to question the logic that the articles are about National Grammar Day and not me. National Grammar Day is my work as much as a football game is the work of a professional athlete. Feats on the field would be part of an athlete's page. 70.89.120.57 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There still need to be good sources about the subject of the article. I will add in the references that I found, since no other editor has done so. Also, there is a male bias on Wikipedia in general (cf. the heavy emphasis on sports and porn). But there are many men who are very good about championing women on these pages. You may have been unfortunate that the person who created the page was not more skilled, but you also need to be less critical of those who are trying to make sure that the quality of WP remains high. LaMona (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Brockenbrough again:

I appreciate the continued dialogue and the acknowledgement that Wikipedia has a male bias. I believe this is why some similarly accomplished men in my field have pages and I do not, despite comparable levels of attribution. Part might be due to inexperience on the part of the page creator--but it hasn't generally been the attribution that's been challenged, but the notability of my work. This is a vital distinction to keep in mind.

I disagree that challenging these decisions and their underlying causes is problematic. I will never be less critical of a power structure with a known bias because I might get banned or will be viewed as ungrateful. That said, I appreciate your willingness to be an editor. Critical discussion is part of the package.

Along these lines: Wikipedia has anonymous editors. Why? And I know this is not your decision, but it's something editors should worry about. What purpose does anonymity serve? Yes, people can drill down for information about some editors, but it is fundamentally lopsided to have one standard of accountability for articles and less accountability and transparency for the editors and authors. It would also show more dramatically the gender imbalance of the editorial network, both of contributors and reviewers.

At any rate, what I offer here, instead of an adorable baby animal picture, is sincere gratitude for your work and expertise, and your forbearance for no-holds-barred discussion. To me that is the spirit of learning, libraries, and Wikipedia.

20:30:37, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Simonbean101


Hi! Martha Brockenbrough is a famous author, she's published by Scholastic (and other major publishing houses), and she has been nominated for well-respected national book awards. I've updated her article to reflect this. I will continue to add more information, but I believe the public has a right to learn more about her. She was a guest speaker on PBS with Nancy Pearl, and so I looked her up to learn more... and saw she doesn't have an article. So I've been working to help update this!

User:Simonbean101 (Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's (there's a link at the bottom of the edit box).) For the article, I added links to reviews of the books. It would be good to have a few more articles about the author, but I wasn't able to find any. (I checked the indexes of the Nancy Pearl books, but Brockenbrough didn't appear there.) You can see that the general notability guidelines emphasize independent, third-party sources. Also see wp:rs about reliable sources. Decisions on keeping articles are not based on how famous the person is, but on the availability of sources that are evidence of that fame. That way, we aren't deciding ourselves who is or isn't famous, but have a set of criteria that we can use. LaMona (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2015 review of submission by Simonbean101


Hi again, it's me in support of a Martha Brockenbrough page. How is being nominated for a Kirkus Award not evidence of being noteworthy? By DEFINITITION it makes her noteworthy. That plus being a published author with a major publishing house. This seems incredibly biased against her for some reason, as it's uterly subjective on your part. I subjectively feel she IS worthy of an article, so why doesn't that trump your opposition since I have national awards to offer as proof? https://www.kirkusreviews.com/prize/2015/finalists/young-readers/

Why is Martha not worthy, but Sharon Maeda is? Isn't that equally subjective? Here she is with Nancy Pearl: http://www.seattlechannel.org/BookLust?videoid=x56548

Thanks again for your help.

Simonbean101 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please PLEASE read the WP guidelines on notability. That will answer your question. It is not subjective, there are guidelines that must be followed. I didn't make them up. But if you are going to create WP articles, you have to read and understand them. There's no use arguing with me about them - I can't change them. Here are the specific guidelines for "creative professionals" including authors:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The reason I added the book reviews to the article is that being the subject of reviews is one of the criteria. With those in the article it may pass - and I offered those months ago but they hadn't been added to the article. It is clear that you didn't read the guidelines. If you had, it would have saved us all a lot of time. You may want to resubmit now for review, but only after reading all of the guidelines that have been pointed out to you and determining for yourself if the article meets the guidelines. LaMona (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:44:53, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona, Thank you for your review. As this album won a major award in dutch record industry, (edison jazz award) wich is shown in the references from major newspapers, I do not understand why "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" ? What am I missing here ? Could you please help me out on this ?

DJDog (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:51:39, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona, I thought that this article in one of the most known Dutch newspapers NRC (http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/2002/12/9/banabila-vloeimans-7617661) and this article with the announcement of winning the award for this album, in one of the other major newspapers (http://krant.telegraaf.nl/nieuwslink/teksten/nws.jazz.ging.gala.edison.html) would be a sign of notability ? These are independent newspapers. Why are those not accepted ?

DJDog (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJDog, you could perhaps put it forth as a stub, but if there is no more to say about it than this it would be best to leave the information on the pages for the musicians. There's not much use to having a page that will never be more than 4 sentences. (And one of those sentences, where the awards ceremony was held, is really superfluous.) The list of tracks is not encyclopedic, especially if there is no more to be said about them. So either expand or incorporate into articles for musicians. That's my !vote. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, Thank you , Could you please help me than how I can put it forth as a stub, how do I do that ? The sentence where the ceremony was held was followed by the fact that this album won the most important price in category jazz of that year. And the review in the biggest newspaper is not to be considered as independent ? And the fact that it was nominated for a golden calf on the dutch filmfestival 1 year later ? With the reference of this film mentioned too ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJDog (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:18:35, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DJDog


It is confusing ... if the most prestigious price in dutch record industry for this category plus a review in the biggest newspaper is not a sign of notablility...than what is ? Is there any way this can be solved or is there somebody at wikipedia that can be requested to finish this article ?

DJDog (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DJDog - The Guidelines for notability for albums says: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Why isn't that good enough? You seem awfully anxious to get this into Wikipedia. and I note that this article and one about one of the musicians are the only pages you have really worked on. If you have a connection with the musicians, let me say that WP is not a venue for promotion of products, but is an encyclopedia. Please address the need for more content in the article. No, WP does not have staff that finishes articles. We are all volunteers. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:25, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona, might this video on national television about the album help for notability ? = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soa2daBlm7w My argument was that if an album is not notable, it usually wont be played on national tv and win an award ?

PLEASE LISTEN! "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." NOTABILITY ASIDE! You have to have something to say about the album. Look at some pages for albums, like Category:2014_debut_albums. You cannot change the facts by sending me more messages. You have to improve the article. LaMona (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:45, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona well it was not a matter of promoting a product, but other albums that won this award are on WP too. So why this exception , while added so much references ? I thought it was about the relevance of the album ..but I suppose that is clearly not accepted here. As you could see in the talk to Flat Out I am the producer of the album and I liked to merge it into the wiki pages of the artists. I suppose the tv url didn't help either ? than I give up ... Please note I appreciate all volunteering for WP ofcourse. It is just a pity you decline this honoustly

20:56:38, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


I understood what you said and I wanted to use this page to cite in another article but I cannot cite this album if the page does not exist. Anyway I sense you are getting very upset , using cap locks, so I give up. Sorry to bother you

20:59:37, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


by the way if I click on your link 2004 debut albums I get a link about 2004 films ? = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2014_films

or maybe I misunderstood..

No, I got the wrong link. It's [5]. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:22, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona ok I understand your last comment and I extended the article. please let me know if this is better ?

if you think you've improved it you can resubmit for review. But you've only added sentence 5. LaMona (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:40, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona, thank you. I extended the article the way you asked, I wanted to merge it in a discography as you suggested, but then this page should be accepted first right ? otherwise I wouldnt know how to merge it. Anyway I will try a resubmit now.

No, merge means that you add the content to the artist's page, instead of this one. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nicholson page

LaMona-

Hello. All of your required revisions have been completed and I have resubmitted the page. If you have time, please look it over if at all possible. Thanks for your time and feedback.


VanceJordan (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff -- bibliography, some new refs. Fixed some style issues. I'll let others review it since now I'm involved. Let's hope. One other thing - Any idea where this Austin English interview comes from? If we could find the original, it's a good source. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rejection of revised entry on the Langport Leveller

Dear Mona I'm frustrated at your rejection and don't understand it, since it is modelled on an entry in the same field for a similar title: "The Western Gazette is a regional newspaper, published every Thursday in Yeovil, Somerset, England. Before February 2009 there were eleven local sub-editions, but these were then rationalised into six: North Dorset, Sherborne, West Dorset, Crewkerne & Chard, Yeovil & District, and South Somerset.[1] However as of 2012 there are only 5 editions: Yeovil; Sherborne; Somerton & Langport; Wincanton, Castle Cary, Bruton & Gillingham and Crewkerne, Chard & Illminster. In 2012, Local World acquired owner Northcliffe Media from Daily Mail and General Trust.[2]"

The references are basically to a bibliographical index, just as I used and the sale of the paper to the Local World - only notable because it sold. So why is one accepted and the other rejected? JBSeatrobe JB Seatrobe (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, see wp:otherstuffexists. Not all articles in WP meet the guidelines, and every day about 100 articles are deleted. It's a constant process. Next, if we can find a guideline that says that all newspapers are inherently notable, then your article can pass. What I do find, in WP:NNEWSPAPER is this:
  • The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education
  • The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
  • The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
  • The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.[notes 1]
This seems quite strict, and doesn't exactly address newspapers. I'll ask if there's a more specific about local newspapers. Note that nearly all of the papers in the category are considered to be stubs. This tells me that newspaper articles are being created that do not meet the general notability guidelines. I'll get back to you with an answer, hopefully soon. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help#Local_newspapers_-_guidelines.3F and we'll see what answer we get. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of post by Surfjk

I really don't understand this. The post that I submitted and you declined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WalletHub) has plenty of sourcing that shows why it is notable. Why, if that entry isn't notable, are these considered to be notable?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HelloWallet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motley_Fool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NerdWallet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordash

Can you please tell me that because the feedback I am getting from editors and from seeing what is and is not posted seems very contradictory and somewhat arbitrary!Surfjk (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten two replies to your article that you have not acted on. One is that too much of the article is about a trademark dispute that is not notable. That information, if included at all, could be single sentence. The other is that you say that NYT, etc. say things about the company, but you don't say WHAT they say. This is to be an article about what is notable about the company so you must say why they find the company worth writing about.
As for the other pages, I won't look at them all, but if you look at HelloWallet you see that the articles cited are ABOUT hellowallet. In your case, the WaPo article has a single graphic from WalletHub and doesn't say anything else about it. The NYT article is about taxes and includes a half dozen sentences about wallethub. Another NYT article refers to a WalletHub survey, but doesn't say anything more about it. There's a significant difference between the coverage. The articles actually ABOUT WalletHub are in lesser-known publications. That said, it is possible that if you remove the less valuable articles and most of the trademark dispute information it will be possible to see better whether the sourcing shows notability as per wp:corp. Note that wp:corp has a list of the types of corporate news that do not support notability, and it would be best NOT to include any of those in the article. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really thought that I had made sufficient corrections to the previous editors' feedback, especially after looking at other similar entries that have been approved (which I would consider to be relevant as examples). I see your point regarding the NYT article, but the WaPo article seems like another story. The whole article is based on an infographic made by the company, and it's more than just one graphic in the article. There are numerous images accompanied by the writer's commentary on different statistics from the company's infographic. WaPo covered another report by the company in the same manner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/04/03/are-the-people-in-your-state-good-with-money/. These are articles specifically about research done by the company that are written by a reputable news outlet and filed under news on their website. How does that not qualify? Please let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks so much in advance!Surfjk (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must have articles that are ABOUT the company. You do not have those. No amount of editing of the article is going to change that. Yes, some journalists have made use of the company's research -- that is the product that the company provides. But those articles are NOT ABOUT THE COMPANY. They cite WalletHub, but they do not talk ABOUT WalletHub. It's like a movie where the hero drives a Ford in it is not about the Ford - it's about whatever the movie is about. These journalists use WH data, but they write their own stories about topics other than WH. So now I have to ask: why are you so bent on getting this company into WP? Are you connected with it? Otherwise, just move on to something else. There are a lot of articles on WP that need work. LaMona (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not affiliated, I would just like to add an article that has not been posted before and i like to see things through. I honestly don't even know if I will continue using Wikipedia after all of this though. Policies seem too inconsistently enforced, as evidenced by the already posted entries that you said you would not look at. But I'd like to give it at least one more shot. Your analogy makes sense to me for passing mentions, but what happens when the movie is ABOUT Ford cars? Just because that movie might have some action or drama or touch on broader themes wouldn't change the fact that it's about Ford cars. Along those lines, would these be examples of sources that would be acceptable? http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/sc-cons-0430-started-20150427-column.html and http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/plano/headlines/20140610-here-are-reasons-why-plano-makes-one-list-for-best-cities-for-families.ece and http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/22/cost-of-smoking/22144969/Surfjk (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hardest thing you can do on WP is to create a new article. There are lots of edits that you can make on existing articles that take very little time and might even get some thanks. Unfortunately, many people begin on WP by trying to create an article, not knowing how hard it is and how much time it takes to do the research and write the article. I have one article that I edited extensively that took me four months of research. We probably should put a warning label on the articles for creation page: "WARNING! Creating a Wikipedia article can suck up weeks if not months of your life. Think twice!" That said, the one promising article that you sent is one I can't get to (Chic Tribune) because they require signing up. The other two are like I said before -- they are Fords in a movie, not a movie about Fords. That doesn't mean that WH's product isn't good -- it just means that it so far has failed to be written about. That could change at any time, if you want to come back to it. Another option is to look for articles in WP where the HW data could contribute, and add it in. When you think about it, how many people are going to come to WP looking up Hellowallet? They'd have to already know it exists. But if its data appears in articles of interest about cities (for example) then it is being useful. Unless, of course, your interest is SEO instead of WP. LaMona (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:14:24, 2 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.161.126.98


Hi LaMona, The notability issue - which you gave as your reason for rejecting the last page submission - has already answered and accepted in the first round of requested edits for Nadine Robbins' page. A previous Wiki editor agreed that given that the Huffington Post Art Critic (and Professor) John Seed named Robbins' portrait 'Mrs. MacDonald' on of the top ten most notable paintings of 2013, and that two of her paintings have been accepted into The Royal Society of Portrait painters (2010 & 2011) and that her work is contained in one of the most prestigious private/public collections in Chicago (Tullman Collection). I don't know what else is needed? She has received national and international recognition in press, open competitions and galleries at a high level. Including the front covers of Art Journals and Magazine's that I didn't include in the page text as I felt it would have appeared to be too promotional. To me this meets Wiki criteria for notability. We have made every edit requested and were told at the last go round that the submission would be accepted. What has happened in the interim? Could you please let me know. Many thanks, -Helen Seslowsky

24.161.126.98 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing has happened - different editors see things differently. And no one promised that it would pass - in fact, each reviewer has had some doubts. Huff post, being a blog, is judged on an article-by-article basis. Seed does not appear elsewhere as a major art critic. (He's virtually invisible as a scholar.) I suspect that reviewer looked at the list of sources but did not look at the sources themselves. (Folks are often judging in a hurry here.) Sources #2 12-15 are not about her, and therefore detract from the article. Source #21 doesn't even mention her, so it doesn't verify anything. #6 has a photo with her in it, but it isn't about her. The Observer has a few sentences about her - not terribly significant. Namaro graphics, being her own site, should be in "external links" not a reference. Can you see what the issues are? For general notability you need significant and reliable sources that are ABOUT her. It's possible that the area where you say: Her work has been featured in.... could yield more information about her. Just listing sources like that doesn't provide any information in the article itself. For example, Roll Magazine says quite a bit about her, but you don't include any of it in the article. For example, it provides this info: "In 1984—while still in college—she got a grant that allowed her to attend a special graphic design conference in Aspen" -- that's information. It also gives some biographical information (she married). It talks about her technique: "Selected couples—many of whom are friends and/or acquaintances—then have a short interview with Nadine, where she gets to know them a little better, while taking notes and making observations, using her graphic design skills to get good concept ideas going. “After there’s some sort of idea or direction—we like each other, there’s a good vibe—we set up the photo shoot.” Nadine prefers to use a neutral backdrop for the photos, keeping the focus on the subjects and their interaction, allowing for the shadow play with the lighting, which helps make the 3-D elements pop out more. Few props, but interesting (and no doubt resonant to the subjects) apparel is encouraged. “I’ll take 200 to 300 pictures, always looking for the one that all of a sudden, the people forget that I’m photographing them, and something really natural comes out.” Several shots are selected, with the subjects’ approval, and the photo is projected onto a canvas, where Nadine can start the basic outlines" All of that is exactly what you want in an encyclopedia article. Who is she? Why is her work important? How does she work? What can we learn from her? It's not just about listing shows and awards; an encyclopedia is information. Dig into those articles and make her come alive for the reader (but without making anything up!). LaMona (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:01:25, 3 November 2015 review of submission by 50.108.21.242


Hi LaMona! Thank you for your feedback on this.

I read the page on notability, specifically notability for organizations (non-commercial). I know that this charity has an international scale, but the problem is with coverage in multiple third party sources, as you might have seen. I followed all of the WP prompts for finding good sources and didn't have much luck. Many of the charity's organizers (and efforts) are Iranian, so I suspect that is why I am having trouble finding information. I will likely contact the charity to obtain more information.

I did find some web pages where it mentions board members and their connection to the charity, as well as a listing on NonprofitLocator.org, but understand that these are not examples of notability.

I wanted to ask your opinion on this source as a starting point: An upcoming event put on by the charity (with background information) at the Iranian-American Community Center

Beyond that, if I am able to dig up any other sources to prove notability and add them, will any of the citations that direct back to the organization's own web page be accepted? I'm just wondering if I'll be able to include the Board of Directors and affiliated organizations using their own website as information once I have established notability and added more sources, or if the website as a source is never allowed for any piece of information at any point.

Thank you for your time.

50.108.21.242 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about events aren't usually good sources -- since the organization is being celebrated, the information there will not be independent and neutral. If you can't find independent, neutral sources then the article will just have to wait until those arise. Not all organizations can find a place in Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:15:37, 3 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Marshrory


Hello LaMona! I have just seen that the Thales Electron Devices article has not been accepted. You left a comment explaining that the sources cited were about the science rather than the company so were not appropriate. It is true that they are scientific journal pieces about specific scientific theory and its applications such as space communications, particle accelerators, nuclear fusion etc. However, they all include sections about Thales Electron Devices's participation in those fields and make reference to Thales Electon Devices's innovation and products.

Does this definitely not count as a notable source?

Thanks, I appreciate your help!

Marshrory (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are indeed sources, but they are sources of little significance. They can be included if they provide a reference for a specific fact that is not found elsewhere. But to show notability you need more than mentions - you need sources are that entirely or primarily about the subject of the article you are writing. Those sources must be independent of the subject and considered reliable. If such sources do not exist, then the topic does not meet the criteria for a WP article. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft Page for SI Group

Can you please provide more guidance on why you have rejected SI Group's draft page? You mentioned Comment: Nothing encyclopedic here, just a company "brochure" in article form. LaMona (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC) The article is written in a neutral point of view, every piece of information is third party sourced from reliable and independent published sources. This page was written closely mirroring format and content types of existing approved Wikipedia pages such as Nike, Dow, and BASF. Could you please provide me with some more specific feedback about what language in the article does not comply with Wikipedia standards. What can we improve to make this article Wikipedia-approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce12bana (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what I said is what I meant. A company is not notable for just being a company. Normal business is not encyclopedic. Your sources are nearly all local, not national, which is quite different from Nike, Dow and BASF. The wp:corp guidelines specificially state: "attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability". LaMona (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leadin (company)

LaMona many thanks for your constructive comments, I have made some minor edits and will continue over the coming days to add citations, it is however difficult to add citations for the company client list as often the only publicly published materials exist on the named company website, but I will add where available. Liaison Technology is a client and not connected with the named company - external website links have been added as suggested. I will re-submit once additional citations have been sourced and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASarfas (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no third-party sources for the client list, you should not include it in the article. In fact, client lists are generally not appropriate for 2 reasons 1) they change 2) they do not confer notability. Instead of thinking about what the company would say about itself, you need to focus on what others have said about the company. Only that latter info should be in the WP article. LaMona (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft Page for Friday Brown

Dear LaMona

Thank you for your comments on this page, which I repeat below for your convenience:

"I was going through removing references that are not acceptable (crowd-sourced sites, etc.). I looked up the article referenced as "Billboard, 13 July 1968, page 73" -- and it does not contain the information in your article. You cannot include information that does not come from 3rd party, reliable sources. I can't take the time to check every reference here, but I'm not happy to have found this discrepancy. Since you had cited a personal communication from the subject in your references, I presume that you know this person. You cannot use what you have been told, only what can be verified in sources."

Your rejection of 3 November is based on inadequate notability, although your earlier declining of 13 October said that the article was 'getting close', but did not mention notability. I would contend the notability issue under the following Wikipedia guidance, the starred information being contained within my draft:

A. Criteria for musicians and ensembles

9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.

    • Brown received first prize at the 10th European Song Cup, as seen by 85 million TV viewers on Eurovision. OK, a long time ago, but still significant.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable

    • Brown performed on numerous UK TV shows. Nothing in the USA, I'm afraid.

B. Criteria for composers and lyricists

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

    • Brown wrote "Once I was a Sailing Ship", popularised by the (notable) singer Val Doonican on two albums.

4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.

    • Brown wrote the lyrics for the song "Be With Me", with which she won the "Polish Day" contest at the 10th Sopot International Song Festival, Poland, on August 28, 1970.

As for the problem of references, the Billboard reference of 13 July 1968 is there, but I’ve now added a web link. I appreciate that it's a lot of work going through all the references, but I agree they should be checked for correctness.

I have removed the reference to any direct communication between me and Brown. The fact that I know her has no relevance as far as I'm concerned. She was, in the distant days of the sixties, a significant performer and I think I have provided enough references to show that, even if sometimes flawed.

I you think I should abandon the submission entirely then I will do so, although I think Wikipedia will be all the less for it.

Many thanks,

Ray White Rtwhite (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in review replies that one gets often have to do with the fact that we can only click on one review "reason" per review, even if there is more than one thing we want to say. It's awkward and confusing, for all of us, and I'd much rather be able to give a more thorough review. Also note that we are reviewing hundreds of articles (as volunteers) so can't spend as much time as we'd like on them.
Now, to your specific questions: What you need are sources that verify these facts. And those sources preferably should be third-party, not primary. So it doesn't work to cite the BBC program listings for the fact that she appeared on the BBC. The problem with the Billboard reference that I checked is that it did not support the facts in the article. You say "was the first winner asked to do two songs at the end of the Final instead of one" and the article cited does not say that. Maybe one of the others does, but you've piled on references that do not support the statements. What we want is the VERY reference that supports that so that anyone wishing to verify the fact can go directly there, not have to wade through irrelevant material. Do not add extra references that merely list her name as a participant or member of a team unless those are the only references you have to support the fact.
"Popularised" is subjective. Did the song chart? Are there reviews of it? Everything has to be sourced to third-parties who themselves say that the song was popular. Where are those sources? All you show is that the song was on the album. That's not enough. You can't say "popularised" unless that can be verified - for that song. As for the Spolot festival, you say she won the "Polish Day" prize -- but she doesn't appear on the list of all Sopot performers at [6], so I'm guessing that her prize was not considered a major one. Statements like "as the 'most outstanding artiste of the 30 competing nations;" come across as promotional. Stick to the facts. "Popularised" and quoting phrases like this are actually a detriment to the article because they do not follow the required neutral point of view that an encyclopedia article should have. You will get further being more factual and less promotional, avoiding over-linking. The article reads like you are desperately trying to convince us that she is notable. If she is notable, the facts will speak for themselves.
If I had access to the materials you cite I could do a first pass on removing the cites that I think are problematic. Unfortunately, I do not have access to most of this material. You seem to be working from hard copies, and that means that you have to do the culling. I could make a pass through to remove promotional language, but that would also remove some references that you would like to keep, since when a sentence goes, the reference also has to go. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:05:19, 4 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lori1986


Hi LaMona,

I'm keen to get a bit of advice on the page I drafted for Jonathan Manns. I was worried before that I went a little over the top with the referencing by comparison to some of the other attempts I made at the same sort of time, but I was still a little uncertain on what to do and so tried to get a good variety and type of links from what I could find online (books, papers, magazines, websites, etc). Admittedly, some sections and references were also copied from other Wikipedia pages that make reference to his work. I put quite a lot of work into the drafting of this one though, so I'm keen to keep working on it, if you could give me some pointers?

Any help appreciated, if it's not too much trouble.

Lori <-- End of message -->Lori1986 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you cannot cite his own works, which is what you mainly have. Everything you cite must be ABOUT him, not BY him. Also, ABOUT does not mean that he is quoted in an article about something else. Those are his own words, and they cannot be used to support the article. Those are what are called primary sources and WP requires third party reliable sources. A sales show, like Grand Designs Live, is not going to be a neutral source - they aren't going to say anything bad about their exhibitors. You need news articles or journal articles that are independent of him and can be trusted to be neutral. I obviously haven't checked all of the sources, but so far I don't find one that is appropriate. You probably want to take a step back, find neutral sources, and try writing a new article based solely on the information in those sources. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:51, 4 November 2015 review of submission by Judith.Lewis


Hi, Just wanted to ask a question (well 2). You mention not mentioning the work but I copied this from other agencies. I thought it helped prove notworthyness as it was also referenced in places like the FT article "His group helped develop Google’s cultural institute, an effort to put photos, videos and documents online in a searchable archive." I was also having trouble with understanding where I went wrong with verifiable sources. I have checked the articles and they seemed OK based on the criteria. I thought perhaps the awards entries but those were post-judging so have already been vetted offline by a panel. Please could you help (I have edited the document and removed some links as suggested and some content). Thank you in advance!

I don't know how else to explain it. You cannot cite articles that are not about Beyond, even if they are about campaigns that Beyond developed. The cites have to be about the subject of the article. Otherwise, you are doing original research -- that is, you are researching an article about the company, not creating a WP article based on things people have said about the company. WP articles are solely based on previously published information about the topic at hand --ABOUT is the key here. So if someone wrote this very article and published it, you could cite it in WP. But you can't write this article in Wp since WP is not a venue for research. LaMona (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Finance

Hi LaMona

Thank you for your feedback on the page I drafted about Ocean Finance. I have made a few tweaks to the page to support its entry as notable. My reasons for notability is that it is a market leader in a large market (£14bn per year) and was sold for in excess of £200m. I have multiple independent sources that have written directly about the business - including the BBC, Daily Telegraph and numerous trade papers. Obviously I can add further citations but as they tend to be similar in content I am not sure that it useful for users. I also believe that the advertising has cultural significance (not in a good way, which is why some of the coverage is negative) - it was widely parodied for example. The Ocean Finance wiki page did actually existing until very recently but was deleted when I pointed out that the firm was no longer part of AIG.

I've left the page in draft for now but would be grateful for your feedback before I submit it again.

Thanks for your help and advice.


Ian

Iwill41 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you read wp:corp? That is the most important document for you, although you should also be familiar with wp:gng and wp:rs. Those explain what defines notability (and therefore entry into Wikipedia) and what sources can be used to verify notability. After reading those you will understand that you must delete the Youtube cite (and you cannot say "widely" about one video). You will also understand that the majority of your sources do not meet the requirements for corporations, in particular these two:
  • simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
  • brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
When you remove those, I don't think you have anything left. The amount of money a company makes, whether it trades on the stock market, etc. does not make a company notable, it just makes it a big company. Big company is not one of the criteria. LaMona (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:21:21, 4 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kamishiro


Regarding my submission of Steve Sinnicks for inclusion. I have read and re-read the "notability guidelines" - as well as referencing several Musicians who are listed in Wikipedia who are less notable than Sinnicks (for example, no charted recordings, no awards, from the same City...). As for "Major Label" recordings, this is the 21st century - when most savvy musicians are self-releasing or releasing through indie labels because they make more money that way. The Major Labels do very little for anyone these days other than distribute for profit; 1 Million recordings "shipped" does not account for how many are returned. I have also tried to keep the language "factual and not flowery". A prime example of the opposite that is asked for in both of those cases is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_Shivers - he's been an "extra" in a couple films, no awards, less notable career, fewer recordings...yet he is listed without issue. This is very frustrating, especially when someone who has been presented with three major awards for their musical contibutions is being told their awards "aren't major", nor their airplay across the nation "valid". In Canada this is a big deal, we don't have a major Chart publication anymore - and the ione we did have was "Industry only" not funded by advertising like Billboard is (I happen to know the difference personally as I did the Charts & many reviews)...any Radio airplay in Canada is considered a big deal - many musicians never achieve this. As for the Awards, the Hamilton Music Awards are substantial; probably the most notable awards outside the Juno awards (and respected on an equal level - if not more - by the Industry) - Steve has won two of these as well as a Hamilton Arts Award for "Established Musician" - nominated by the public and judged by his peers.

If there is any specific fixes you might suggest, I would be happy to hear. I have referenced everything possible to "outside reliable sources".

Cheers.

Kamishiro (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue all you want but I cannot change the criteria. I agree with you about self-releasing, but WP does not. You can resubmit your article after making changes, but the criteria in the WP policies remain the same. I would expect folks to start a discussion about changing the criteria for musicians. The group to do this would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. The Articles for Creation project does not make changes to policies.
Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument. That article that you cite has been marked as not meeting criteria, and will probably eventually get slated for deletion. See the big box at the top of the article. At least 100 articles are deleted every day. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:41, 4 November 2015 review of submission by Kamishiro


I've made some changes & additions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Sinnicks - not sure at this point whether it's a help or a hindrance. LOL Would appreciate further input, regardless. T.I.A.


Review of Bridges Ventures

Hi LaMona (I dont know what is happening with these sections/topics, it wont let me make a new one)

Many thanks for your help, but I dont understand why my page is being rejected. I have almost 30 citations including highly respectable sources, such as the UK Cabinet Office, the Financial Times, the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, the BVCA, Cathy Clark, Jed Emerson, Ben Thornley's The 'Impact Investor: Lessons in Leadership and Strategy for Collaborative Capitalism' - a widely praised book, and more. I do not understand how this is not enough?

- Doughty Hanson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughty_Hanson_%26_Co) has five citations.

- Izurium Capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izurium_Capital) have six citations, including their own listing on CrunchBase, and one literal press release.

- Diversity Global (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Global) has only one! And this is their own website!

Actually, there are a full 51 private equity firms for just the UK listed on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Private_equity_firms_of_the_United_Kingdom) (every single one of which was written by themselves I assure you, even if they haven't listed it as so, as I have, to adhere to your regulations on transparency, for which I believe I am being penalised), many of which are smaller, and more financially focused then Bridges Ventures is. We are an impact investor working with charities and social enterprises. This is far more notable than most of these other listings. We are also an educational service provider, another aspect i need to include in this post.

Additionally, these Wikipedia pages also reference Bridges Ventures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Cohen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_McGrath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Englander

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Board_of_Overseers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeapFrog_Investments

So I just dont understand the (rather unfair) reasoning behind the rejection of my post on the grounds of a lack of citations?

Best Aung2015

Aung2015 (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aung2015, as the marketing director for the company whose WP page you are creating, your view is not neutral. What you have produced is in essence a marketing profile of the company that reads like a press release and that cites articles that all read like press releases. WP is an encyclopedia, it is not a directory of companies nor does it exist to promote your company. Although reliable sources must be used, just being a reliable source is not sufficient -- the information must be more than a report of "business as usual." (And as for those other companies who you probably see as competitors, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - which is never a valid argument.) What makes this company encyclopedic? That some WP pages say that a person sits on the board does not make this article necessary (and note that the Peter Englander page is marked as not meeting WP criteria which means it may come up for deletion). It would be great if you saw WP as something other than a possible promotion for your company; if you would entertain the spirit of WP as a free, open exchange of information. I don't see that in your work. But do not come to those of us who are dedicated to WP to fight for your promotional view. You are the one who is out of step. I hope you also realize that once your article goes into main space you are not allowed to edit it due to your COI. If you do continue to edit it, your account will be blocked. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks LaMona. I will rework the post. The 'Other Stuff Exists' point is just frustrating as these articles, whether up for deletion now or not, got through the initial WP approval process, which makes the whole process seem pretty arbitrary.

Aung2015 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aung2015 Note that not all articles go through AfC, and it looks like these did not. One can create articles directly in main space, but they are more likely to be deleted because they don't get the advantage of the help given at AfC. (I know it doesn't always seem like help.) There are folks who patrol the lists of new articles and try to catch them, but instead they often end up being clean-up later. All of this is a great drain on the time of volunteers, so the AfC process should weed out articles that don't meet the criteria in the policies. Personally, I'd make it even harder to get articles into main space because I spend countless hours on the cleanup. It is also true that you will get different answers from different editors in AfC, but the main thing is to read the policies they point out so that you understand what WP is about, its style, and its criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:35, 5 November 2015 review of submission by Kamishiro


Some more corrections, additions of links & references. BTW, my last question seems to have been invaded by someone else's submission.

yes, it was. The talk page "technology" is a bit awkward and doesn't always seem to work right. Honestly, I don't fully understand it but should spend some time wrapping my head around it. Note that I also did edits on your draft, which means that I will now let someone else review it since I'm no longer entirely neutral. It really still doesn't meet the criteria, but someone may let it through. That means, though, that you may have a deletion challenge in main space. The problem is that the media and the awards are all local, and he's mainly self-published. But we've already discussed that. I do hope you join the music group here -- there's much that needs to be done and I suspect they think about modern music venues as you do. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Bud Harner Draft

LaMona, Bud Harner's page is NOT an autobiography- hence the username change. Please see the following link for the explanation as I'm not going to repeat the entire conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions Allegators (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to repeat the whole thing, but you need to place notices where they will be found. You can reply on the draft page (just select edit). You could also place something on your user talk page. In fact, you do not appear to have a user page and it is always good to have one. However, do not delete entries from that page because we need the documentation trail to be able to understand how the article has evolved. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What notices? That I changed usernames? What else do I need to include on my user page once created?

Allegators (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put a mention on the talk page of the draft. Your own user page could say that you have also edited as User:BudHarner but that you made the name change for clarify on such and such a date. Your user page is for you to give information about yourself (if you wish - nothing is required) but it looks better if your user page exists rather than being a red-link. LaMona (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see- thanks for the recommendations. Is there anything else you suggest I edit/add before I resubmit Bud Harner's article?

Allegators (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegators Unfortunately you do not have a strong case for notability. Notability requires reliable third-party sources. I'm not sure how allmusic is regarded -- are they a directory, or do they actually do independent reviewing? Do they ever give bad reviews? Hopefully others have a better idea. But in any case, most of your links are to a single source, so it would be ideal to find a greater variety of sources to support notability. Also, (again unfortunately) the link to Chapman management doens't mention him, so that cant be used. Interviews and the bio on Verve are not considered independent, so the information they support does not support notability. You need to think more about what attention he has received from the world at large, and look for reviews of his work in other places. "Independent" means someone he does not work for, and who isn't promoting him. (Again, I'm not sure about allmusic, but will look for discussions of it on the reliable sources noticeboard.) LaMona (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allegators Found this about allmusic:[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#allmusic.com]. And there are other discussions that come to the same conclusion. It can be used to source info about recordings, but does not establish notability. So you can use it linked to the recordings in your article, but it will not count as a source that confers notability -- mainly since they cover ALL music (as their name says) so there is no selection process that would make the entries notable. LaMona (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Chapman Management link where it mentions Bud Harner as an employee- although that really isn't a source of his notability. Regarding my use of Allmusic as a source- Allmusic lists recording credits and awards a particular recording has received. This also includes Billboard chart information (several of the tracks Bud played on and produced were in the top 10 and several hit #1; not to mention the Gold and Platinum records he played on and produced. The Gold and Platinum recordings are cited from RIAA's website (Recording Industry Association of America- http://www.riaa.com/index.php). I'm still not fully understanding why Allmusic is not a source of notability as the majority of Bud Harner's notability is in recordings he either played on or produced. I suppose I can cite the chart topping recordings via Billboard's website archives. Although their chart archives do not list the credits of each recording- only Allmusic does.

Allegators (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:13:35, 6 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dotcope


Hello LaMona,

The sources I used are, by large, highly regarded LGBT sources such as Lambda Literary.org which is a secondary source and a third party source publications, Award cermony announcements made by the award's website itself--which must be reliable as that cannot have come from Propps herself and is beyond her control, LGBTQ newspapers, Review sites, and booksellers as well as online literary magazines etc. I have read many a wikipedia articles citing the very same sources. I made sure to use the same sources so I am sure you can understand my frustration at this point. If the sources I used have been used before, and are in use on pages on accepted and published articles why are they no longer being accepted in this case? Also, if they are no longer being used what could replace them as those sources, which have been used repeatedly and I will be happy to give examples of wiki pages using those sources. Because I do not understand how those sources can be accepted for some articles but not for this one.

Thank you Dotcope (talk)DotDotcope (talk)


Dotcope (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dotcope, did you read the comment I left you? Here's what I said: "You cannot use social sites (Goodreads), sales sites (Amazon, BookStrand), promotional sites, blogs, or informal web sites (ones without an editorial policy). It is also best not to fill the article with a mere list of titles - that's not very interesting reading. What books you list need to have full citations: publisher, place, date, and ISBN. Self-published works do not confer notability." This is a standard reliable source definition, and it shouldn't be surprising. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that holds water (read it, please). You must remove social sites (ones that allow anyone to edit, and WP is included in that) and sales sites from the article, and you need to format the book bibliography as a real bibliography. This: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books refers to citations but is also a good guide for bibliographies. The reason for this is that WP provides verifiable information, and one cannot verify the existence of a book from a mere title -- more than one book can have the same title. Newspapers, review sites that are considered reliable -- those are all good. If there are questionable sources, we can take them to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where people can help us decide what is reliable. I know that the AfC review templates are far from ideal, but it's what we have to work with when doing reviews. I try to leave comments that are more specific since I know that the templates often aren't terribly helpful. LaMona (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To give you an idea of what criteria might be used regarding publications, here's the reviewer info from BDSM book review: "
  • Reviewers are not employed by BDSMBookReviews.
  • Reviewers will edit their own reviews, plus a BDSMBookReviews Editor will give them a second glance prior to the website release.
So that is a site without editorial oversight, since there is no editing of the content. That's what will be looked at when we take questions to the noticeboard. I don't know how strict folks will be, but the wp:rs policy says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Obviously, if no one is editing the reviews, no fact-checking is going on. Therefore, that site is like a blog, not like a newspaper. It's a community resource, but not a reliable information resource, at least as I read it. Reliable is not related to popular -- things can be very popular and either reliable or un-reliable. It's a different measure. LaMona (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:31, 6 November 2015 review of submission by 2601:197:C001:22AD:B0B6:4B7E:BAFD:41CD


I appriciate your time and efforts. I'm wondering which sources are not reliable. Would you kindly let me know your thoughts when you can?

Number 1 is his employer's site - not independent. (He may have even written it himself, but it would never say anything negative about him. Not neutral). #2 doesn't resolve - probably was a search. #3 You can't use searches as references - you need to reference specific resources. #s 4, 5, 6 are not about him, but are instances of his work. You cannot use instances of his work, you need resources that are about him. Instances of his work are considered original research (read that). #7 you do not cite Wikipedia entries, you use wp:wikilinks instead. That link back there will show you how. And as for #s 8 & 9, although this is interesting, it's a "minor character" (per #9) and not going to contribute much to notability. LaMona (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:34, 6 November 2015 review of submission by SriniVin


Hello LaMona,

Thank you for your review. Regarding corporate notability, Avaamo has been covered in Fortune, TheAtlantic, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, EconomicTimes, TechInAsia, and on NPR's Marketplace program. Hence I believe we meet the corporate notability requirement. I updated the draft with new references, and all the references are verifiable and independent of Avaamo. Other companies of similar profile include CoTap and Lua, and their Wikipedia pages have been accepted with similar references.

I hope this provides all the necessary information. If you agree, I'll resubmit the page for editorial review.

Thanks, SriniVin (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SriniVin, it's not just being "covered" -- it's what the coverage is. So in the articles about emoji, an Avaamo officer is quoted. This is exactly what is NOT considered notable (see the list at wp:corp that includes: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources"). Raising seed money is not notable in itself -- all companies raise money to get started. Now, one article does say "The seed round is one of the largest in the world. " but you haven't included that in the WP article. The VentureBeat articles is BY someone at Avaamo, not about Avaamo, and is therefore not an independent source. And there's not much to gain by saying "has been featured in" -- that doesn't matter, what matters is what they said about the company. "Featured in" doesn't tell me anything about the company. So it isn't just a matter of gathering sources, you have to actually write the article based on what those sources say, and say enough so that a reader of the WP article understands why the company has a WP article. Readers themselves don't care about sources, they want information. LaMona (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:49, 6 November 2015 review of submission by Aagreeny4


Hi, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by citing secondary sources. Can you please tell me exactly what you mean by that?

Do you mean create a list of my secondary sources or find sources that prove the reliability of the secondary sources that I already have or did yo mean something completely different? Thank you for helping Aagreeny4 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aagreeny4 I didn't mention secondary sources so I'm not sure what the question is, but you really must read Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners, and also reliable sources. You shouldn't be using sources like community college newsletters; you should stick to major media. And I was the one who said to drop all of the marathon stuff -- unless he's one of the famous winners, which it doesnt seem that he is. A primary source would be his own statements in interviews, testimonies before congress, writings and speaking engagements. Those cannot be used. What matters in WP is what others have said about him (which is well explained in referencing for beginners). Those are secondary sources. Primary sources are not allowed. Also, sources that are not independent of him (his school, his buddies, the people who invited him to speak) are not allowed because they are not independent and neutral. You also have a lot of information in here that isn't sourced to any secondary sources, like the whole first part of the personal life section, who he's married to and his children. I suspect that you are not independent of the subject of the article because you know things that you haven't found in sources (and based on your username). For that, you should read: conflict of interest which explains why it is best not to write about people you are close to. It is hard to step back and look at them as if they were a stranger that you had researched. But that is the point of view that WP requires. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am confused by what yo are telling me. I was told by username Bearcat last week the difference between primary and secondary sources, and that I can use both as long as I have enough of the notable primary sources, then I can use the secondary sources for additional information. This is completely different from what you are telling me. I would like to understand why there is the difference. Maybe you can talk to Bearcat and understand this difference that i am being told.

Also you did state about the secondary sources in the initial decline. This is copied exactly what you said- Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. Aagreeny4 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you must have me confused with someone else because I can see the full history of the article and the most recent post is the only one I have made to it. I can see Bearcat's response to you on your talk page and he tells you the opposite of what you say above, and says it quite clearly. What Bearcat tells you there is great advice, and you should follow it. I can't help if you don't understand clear instructions. But you really should be reading the policies. The policies are here on WP for you to read so you don't need to rely on second-hand information from reviewers. I reiterate: wp:n, wp:blp, wp:rs, as well as the ones listed now on your talk page in the reviewer boxes. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewer,

We are trying to create a new article in Wikipedia about the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). This is the European Federation of the National Societies of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine; the aim of the Federation is to connect the National Societies in Europe and to create a platform for all European specialists in this field, thus representing IFCC (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) in Europe. In the submitted draft we described the Federations, its scope and organization and the mission and activities as well. Our draft has not been accepted (twice) because submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Unfortunately, it is really very difficult to find references about this topic different from the ones reported in our draft. The source of the references could be the Federation website or websites of the Organizations EFLM is collaborating with; it is hard to find printed material from a third part. I’m wondering if you could be so kind and help us to overcome the problem of the references making thus our article suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

I thank you in advance Best regards Francesca Tosato Chair of EFLM Promotion Working Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francescatosato (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Marijagerakaroska Your submission at Articles for creation: European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (July 6)

Dear reviewer,

We are trying to create a new article in Wikipedia about the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). This is the European Federation of the National Societies of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine; the aim of the Federation is to connect the National Societies in Europe and to create a platform for all European specialists in this field, thus representing IFCC (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) in Europe. In the submitted draft we described the Federations, its scope and organization and the mission and activities as well. Our draft has not been accepted (twice) because submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Unfortunately, it is really very difficult to find references about this topic different from the ones reported in our draft. The source of the references could be the Federation website or websites of the Organizations EFLM is collaborating with; it is hard to find printed material from a third part. I’m wondering if you could be so kind and help us to overcome the problem of the references making thus our article suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

I thank you in advance Best regards Francesca Tosato Chair of EFLM Promotion Working Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.121.11 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is unfortunately no way to make an article acceptable other than it meeting the criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not for promotion of people or organizations but is an encyclopedia of those that are already notable, as evidenced by published materials from third parties. If your organization does not meet these criteria, it may in the future; you could submit the article at that later time. Also note that it is not acceptable to create or edit articles in the main (non-draft) space where you are directly associated with the subject of the article. It is allowed in draft space, but once the article is accepted you may no longer edit it directly. See conflict of interest guidelines. Even in the draft space you should place a notice on the talk page of the article declaring your conflict of interest, as well as on your user page. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:14, 9 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Civil War Historian


WP:CITEBUNDLE appears to allow for multiple citations to be bundled together in the manner applied to this rejected submission. One of the reasons given is in WP:CITEBUNDLE is to reduce the clutter of having several citations in a single paragraph, so I thought his was permissible? Thanks! Civil War Historian (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Historian (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, it is allowed with the type of citation format you are using. So re-submit and I will approve. LaMona (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh no!11!!

Beware the inline style monster!

And watch out for that librarian village, too.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Yarovskaya

Hi LaMona

You have accepted Marianna Yarovskaya page today but page is not there, can you please check.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamothers (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iamothers, It was deleted by User:Ymblanter. From what I can tell, it had been deleted before as you can see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marianna_Yarovskaya. In my experience, previously deleted articles can be re-created as good articles. Having been previously deleted does not mean an article by that name can never be recreated. However, I was not part of the previous delete process and do not know what transpired. You may wish to contact Ymblanter on their talk page for more information. LaMona (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:23:39, 10 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elenabolo


Hello! The article I'm helping to create was rejected three times already... I tried adding sources & references, but nothing seems to work.
This article is dedicated to the pretty old, well respected, annual international conference in mathematics (IWOTA): it was started in 1981, and is still very active, getting on average 200-300 scientists and engineers to participate every year. IWOTA is supported by National Science Foundation as well as by many international organizations such as London Mathematical Society, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, etc. By all standards, it deserves a page in encyclopedia.

Since it is my first project, I looked up some similar pages in wikipedia (dedicated to other academic conferences) -- they do not look much different from IWOTA's, and most do not have ANY references at all... Here are some of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workshops_on_Lattice_QCD_and_Numerical_Analysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workshop_on_Nitride_Semiconductors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workshop_on_Balto-Slavic_Accentology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Symposium_on_Memory_Management

May I please ask you to tell me exactly what is lacking on IWOTA's page? Why the references to its proceedings (published by a very reputable Springer/Birkhäuser) and to the NSF funding awards pages are not sufficient?

Would the photographs from different IWOTA meetings be a good addition? (many renowned scientists were presenting talks there)

Thank you very much for your help!

Elenabolo (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elenabolo, WP requires that EVERY fact in the article be supported by what we call secondary sources. You have many statements in the article that are not so supported. For example, the sentence that begins "Gohberg was one of the few operator theorists..." is not sourced, and because it is a statement of fact it must be. Note also that the transactions and proceedings of the conference are not evidence of notability, but writings ABOUT the conference by neutral third parties are. Notability comes from having been written about by independent sources. This is difficult for conferences because they are not often written about, but these are the basic rules for notability. Read the description at reliable sources. That other articles exist that you think do not meet the WP policies is not a viable argument -- WP is constantly being edited, and each day about 100 articles are deleted for not meeting the notability guidelines. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:52, 11 November 2015 review of submission by Dshargrett


Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I have updated references to include Vanity Fair, Drum! magazine and Jazz Times, all very-well established references.

Your feedback re my Katherine Timpf article

Thanks for your feedback. I've removed all citations of the Hillsdale Collegian from the article. One problem is that I would love to use some details from the Collegian articles relating to Katherine's "Early Life." Should I not do that? I've also removed all but one citation of Red Alert Politics. That citation is in the "Awards and honors" section and says she was on the Red Alert Politics "30 under 30" list. Is that appropriate? Thanks again Joekollege (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joekollege - The question about Red Alert is: is it a reliable source, as per wp:rs? In general I'd say no, and that "award" does nothing to show notability for her compared to other information in the article. With that deleted, she's just as notable as before. #19-#21 - you cannot use WP as a reference. It is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it. #1 and #2 are statements by her, therefore primary sources, whereas secondary sources are preferred. Being briefly quoted does not confer notability (#11-#15) - those aren't ABOUT her. You shouldn't need to dig deep into unreliable sources for your information if your subject is notable. I don't see any articles here that are expressly about her although she is mentioned in the ones you use. You need to find third-party articles about her - reviews of her shows, that kind of thing. If those don't exist, then she isn't (yet) notable, and the article should wait until those sources do exist. LaMona (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:25:23, 11 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Amyers82191


Hi there,

I received your message for the Direct Capital page I am trying to get approved. I noticed some of the references were already changed (ex: honorable mention in one of the awards sections). I want to get this approved, but at this point I really am struggling to see what still needs to be changed. Can you please be more specific in guiding me in the right direction? I've taken a lot of effort to find appropriate, non-bias sources over the many edits I've made so that this can be complete. Thank you,

Alex

Amyers82191 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amyers82191 We can start by determining why you are so desperate to get this approved. If a company is not notable, it should not be in Wikipedia. When it comes to entertainment figures, their supporters tend to be fans. When it comes to companies, the supporter is often related somehow to the company - an employee, a founder, or a paid editor. This article looks quite promotional to me, and this is the only article that you have edited on WP. We encourage people to join us here at WP to create a world-class encyclopedia, and that means being committed to our goals. Promoting a company is not included in those goals. Can you state your relationship with the company, and why you feel so strongly about it having a WP article? That said, not every company meets the requirements for notability -- WP is not a company directory, nor is it a place to promote entities. If you have not yet done so, please look at the conflict of interest policies. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:54:28, 12 November 2015 review of submission by E W Musgrave


Morning! I was surprised to get your note about the biography of Don McCarthy not qualifying to appear on Wikipedia. His appropriateness had been confirmed by another editor some months ago. He is one of the most significant figures in UK fashion retailing. Additionally, I am still perplexed by the comments that some of the references are not appropriate and accurate. These have been checked by at least two professional business journalists, who find them correct and proper. I should point out that as Don McCarthy has held positions such as executive chairman, chief executive officer, major shareholder etc, the action of the company was directed by him, hence the need to state what the company achieved. I look forward to hearing your response as I would like to see this entry appearing on Wikipedia. E W Musgrave 07:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read carefully all of the comments you have received. The problem is that there are unsourced statements of fact in your article, many of which have to noted with a [citation needed] mark. All statements of fact, especially those about living persons, must be sourced to reliable, third-party sources otherwise they will be deleted. It is especially inappropriate to say un-verifiable things about a living person. The problem is not with the notability of the subject of the article, but with the article as written. Also note that being a chairman, etc., is not itself a reason to have a WP article. Again, please read carefully the rules for notability, which require third-party sources regardless of the real life achievements of the subject. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did in this edit. It just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I caught one and removed it, so I'll check first. New to new article patrol, still learning. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:25:46, 12 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elenabolo


Thank you so much for your explanations! I think I understand now how to improve my draft. Thank you for your time -- your work is very appreciated.

Elenabolo (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bitsbox and RS

I was just having a look at WP:AFC and came across Draft:Bitsbox. Thanks for your work generally at AFC, but I'm just wondering about the review you gave the creator of this draft.

many sources (e.g. the first 3) are not considered reliable

Some of the sources seem pretty unreliable, but source two—this TechCrunch article—seems pretty reliable. It's written by an experienced writer for a website that has editorial oversight and whose work has been republished/syndicated to more mainstream journalism outlets. Just wondering on what basis you consider it to not be reliable. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at the draft I was seeing here. There were blogs and personal sites. And, amazingly, the creator seems to have figured it out -- the article now looks much better. LaMona (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:06, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor


Thanks for reviewing my article on the Two Row Treaty Renewal Journey and pointing out its narrow focus on the event of the journey itself. I have revised the article to put the event and the treaty in historical context and to add some of the ongoing impacts of the renewal campaign, including applications of the treaty in Congressional testimony against use of racist mascots, in the campaign against fracking in NY, and in support of other environmental and human rights causes. I believe the new version will give a more encyclopedic view of the treaty's renewal, and would respectfully request another review.


Also, I would like to revise the title slightly, to become "River Journey to Renew the Two Row Wampum Treaty." I've tried to do that while I had the article in Edit mode, but didn't see a way to change the title there.

  • I'd advise you to begin by adding any new information you have to the article on the Two Row Wampum Treaty. An existing article is always the place to start. Your article is still primarily about a single event. If you have enough material for a separate article on the efforts to renew the treaty, then treaty renewal could potentially be an article of its own. But the canoe trip is unlikely to be encyclopedic itself, while efforts to renew the treaty could be. (p.s. article name changes can be done at the time of acceptance, or as a "move" function.) LaMona (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation. If you wish, we can begin to sketch this out on the talk page of the article Talk:Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty.That is the usual place to discuss changes to an existing article. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:18, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor


Thanks - I would be glad to work on a short "400th Anniversary" section of the Two Row Wampum article. I'll go to the talk page for that article, to discuss the possibilities...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=690799216"