Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 November 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< November 5 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 7 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 6[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anna Cates[edit]

I want to create the article "Anna Cates" but I could not. I am not sure what should I do to create this article and make it alive in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyadnalsamman (talkcontribs) 09:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The draft needs better sources, and it needs to present the sources in a more helpful way. Right now the readers cannot tell which source confirms which of the article's statements. For example, which source says Cates won the I.S.U. Van Til Graduate Award for Writing? I found a source saying that her interests include "nature, movies" - the draft says they include "nature, animals (especially dogs), writing, literature, music, and art". Why doesn't the draft list movies, and where do the other interests come from? The draft should use inline citations and footnotes to link a statement to its source. See also WP:Referencing for beginners.
Furthermore, many of the draft's sources seem to be written by Cates herself, or by organizations she's affiliated with, such as short author biographies on websites that publish her work. I don't think even one of the sources not directly affiliated with Cates has been subject to editorial oversight. To be considered notabile by Wikipedia's standards she must have been the subject of sigificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her, such as newspaper articles - I don't think the current sources fit that bill. Huon (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the original decline reason for badly formatted references is not a valid reason to decline an article, and the reviewer should receive a trout if that was the only reason for declining it. However, I suspect, as Huon has confirmed, that the references don't help establish any notability of the subject, and that was the real reason for the decline. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coach hire in Surrey[edit]

Merbus1 (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I proceed to get my page postedMerbus1 (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Your page is unambiguous advertising. It contains no references to reliable sources and seems to exist solely for the purpose of promoting the company. This is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article, so it has been proposed that it be speedy deleted. Do not use Wikipedia to advertise commercial services. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As anticipated, your article has been speedy deleted as blatant advertising. You can try contacting the administrator who deleted the article, RHaworth, but you will need to have a strong and compelling argument as to why it should be restored. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, but in general, avoid anything to do with products or services that you have a direct involvement in. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teun Voeten[edit]

Dear help desk stuff, I am writing you about this article When the article was declined I contacted straight on the editor that declined it, asking for help and suggestions. He replied very quickly to my first message but now I haven't been hearing from him for a while. In this period I have few days quite free and I want to fix this article thing: so, can you please tell me what do you think about the article and what shall I do in order to improve it? The same question also for this article, the editor that question it is the same. thanks for your time and consideration Ransfortstraat (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The draft (and the Tunnel People article) relies heavily on primary sources such as articles written by Voeten himself or the websites of organizations he's affiliated with. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject - thus we need other people writing about Voeten. The Tunnel People article also has multiple sources that predate the book - they obviously cannot mention the books and thus cannot be used as sources for, say, the book's content.
The best source by far is the Volkskrant article: Independent, reliable, detailed. The BBC of course is also a reliable source, but it's an interview, Voeten speaking about his tunnel experience, which isn't all that independent of Voeten and doesn't say that much about him anyway. The Lexicon Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Fotografie may also be a good source; unfortunately the link points somewhere else, the 2001 edition seems unknown to Google Books, and I couldn't find out what exactly the lexicon says about Voeten.
Thus I'm not quite sure whether Voeten is notable enough for an article - that requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and those few above make him a borderline case at best. To improve the article we should try and find more reliable independent sources about him, and we should remove content that's entirely unsourced or only based on primary sources. We may end up with a much shorter draft, but it's better to have a short, well-sourced article than a long one based on dubious sources. Huon (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)