Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 29
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 28 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 30 > |
| 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. |
October 29[edit]
volvo car corporation[edit]
How the big data strategy gives volvo car corporation competitive advantage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.149.235 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deena Mehta few days back which was reviewed on 26th October. The submission of article has been declined stating the comment by the reviewer "The achievements should be countered with criticism, or substantiated with additional reliable sources. Go Phightins! 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)"
Can you explain me detail what need to be done from my end to make this article more effective.
I have tried putting in all the media & reliable references and written the article with a bias view itself. Awaiting your response
Marketing ACM (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Marketing_ACM
- Well, Mehta has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources; she's clearly notable. But much of the article's content is currently not supported by those sources: For example, the "education" and "personal life" sections don't cite any sources, and none of the draft's current sources mentions Mehta's education at Sydenham College. The source for her "Special Contribution to Indian Capital Market" award is the organization bestowing the award, a primary source. An independent source would be much better. And the Economic Times article doesn't say that she has been elected president of the BSE, but that she was about to be elected. A source confirming that she did indeed win that election would be nice. On the other hand the Sunday Times of India article gives some details on Mehta's early career that the draft currently doesn't use. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am a member o the GUBA team and am writing on behalf of the organisation, what can i do to make this wiki article go live?
- First of all you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; it may be better not to write on behalf of the organization at all (after all we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free advertising).
- The draft's main problem is its lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We require significant coverage in such sources both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Most of the draft's current sources are the organization's own web pages, with some self-published sources such as someone's personal website and LinkedIn thrown in. And the sources other than GUBA itself don't even mention it and thus could not be used to verify anything about GUBA even if they were reliable.
- Furthermore, the draft's tone is unduly laudatory. Take the very first line: GUBA "is a prestigious, annual awards ceremony" - who called it prestigious? Claims such as that would definitely need a reliable source that's independent of GUBA.
- The "judges" sections, on the other hand, tell us very little about GUBA. The judges may or may not be individually notable; their biographies should not dominate the GUBA article. They also read like puffery: "Her songs are effortless, elegant and timeless in a way that is rare in this era of music and her honeyed voice is frequently compared to the likes of Sade, Phyllis Hyman and Norah Jones" - really? Says who? We actually have an article on Rhian Benson; a simple link thereto would be much more appropriate than this paean of praise. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Question regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Christian Librarians
What's the deal with my article being declined? I submitted it for the first time this morning and got a message instantly that it had been declined due to insufficient notability 45 days ago by a wikipedia reviewer (which couldn't possibly be true given that I'd never posted it before and there was absolutely no time between its submission and rejection). The organization certainly meets your notability criteria--there are plenty of journal articles on the organization, not to mention it has had a master's thesis written about it--but much of the information relevant to the short article I'm submitting is most current from the organization's own website (headquarters, current membership, etc.). I cite the master's thesis and another journal article for much of the information, and the ACL website for the most current information. Was it rejected by an automated system? Do I need to change the citation formatting somehow?
I just went back to the talk page and discovered that someone had written an article under the same title 45 days ago that was rejected (from what I could tell) based on a lack of sources cited). I believe my sources establish the organization's notability (or at least I could provide further evidence of it if that was required), but my article is not being reviewed because of the previous submission. How might I have my submission reviewed?
Skaihoi (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)skaihoi
- Hello Shaikhoi! Since Wikipedia keeps records of all versions ever submitted, this one was easy to track down. Please refer to the history of the draft page (link). It shows that one RoryPatt started that draft on 7 September, it was declined on 14 Sept, and on 29 October you came to that draft and pasted in your own material along with it, and it was declined again today. The reason for the "45 days go" bit is that you piggybacked onto an already existing draft rather than starting your own. That's not necessarily forbidden, but you didn't give any explanation in the WP:Edit summary for what you meant to do, so the intent was unclear.
- In any case, the version you're working (on a page which now holds too unrelated versions) is better-formatted, but all but one of your references are from ACL itself. While it's okay to briefly cite the subject's own webpage for basic non-controversial details like founding date, headquarters location, etc., overall we require WP:Independent sources. That is, objective sources with no ties to the subject, like the Library Journal publication you cite once. Looking at GoogleBooks, it appears there a number of books which give some details and examination of ACL, so I'd definitely try footnoting some facts to those sources (you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to auto-create Wikipedia footnotes). Hope this helps explain! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have re-submitted the draft for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. The decline message also contained a relevant note: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here."
- Besides looking for additional sources I'd suggest looking through the old draft in order to merge everything that's salvageable (and that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources) into the new draft and to remove everything else. If the draft is accepted, that will have to happen anyway. For now I've just left a message so the next reviewer won't be confused by the new draft, but combining them into one would remove all ambiguity. I haven't looked at the old draft in detail and cannot tell whether there is anything worth salvage - maybe it's best to just remove the old draft outright. The old decline message should remain as a historical record until the draft is accepted, though. Huon (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I just got this message on a page I am trying to create, but I don't know what to do, or how to do it. This is my first attempt at making a page so the terminology is somewhat confusing.
This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I don't know how to remove the User Sandbox template, or even what it is. Also, I don't know if I move the page into my userspace, it won't be considered as a real Wiki article.
Can you help please? brosed brosed (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- You originally created the draft as a sub-page of your user page, a so-called "sandbox". It was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colours (musical group), the preferred location for drafts that are about to be submitted, but MatthewVanitas, the user who performed the move, apparently forgot to remove the message that said the page was (or used to be) a sandbox. It was created by the "{{user sandbox}}" code at the very top of the draft. I removed that message.
- I noticed another problem with your draft. I don't think the sources are sufficient to establish the band's notability. For that purpose we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. But your sources are either blogs, which are not considered reliable because they are not subject to editorial oversight (and the information seems to be either from a band member's brother-in-law or from a CD booklet and thus is not independent either), or track listings and credits from websites such as AllMusic - that's not considered significant enough. Are there independent reviews of the band and its work? Has it received newspaper coverage? That would be much better. For example, the claims about the record label's lack of experience, the poor marketing, or the lesser appeal of the second album would all need a reliable source to back them up - but right now none of the sources other than the blogs writes as much as a single sentence of text on the band. Huon (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Ojeda sings cool songs and he is so famous and he was three mens thats uses only on intresis each one. gutar ....[[]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.93.70 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- That should be added to the draft, and it should be backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or independent reviews. Right now there's so little context that I cannot even tell whether Jesus Ojeda is one person or a trio. Huon (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proism[edit]
Hello, I have worked for over a year now on the creation of my religion. I have a small group of followers in my communtity and would like to achieve more. I have contacted national news sites to no avail. I have tried to get my religion on wikipedia before but i have no sources. Is there any way you could put it up to get the world out? Just trying to make a difference in the world. Thanks, Noah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanzan15 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: No. Without reliable sources that are independent of the subject we cannot have an article. Furthermore, you seem to have a connflict of interest: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tool for evangelism. Huon (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)