Help desk
< September 15	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 17 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 16[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism[edit]

Hello, Wikipedia talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism This page requires mare than disambiguation, it requires a description for Hellenism. Historiceditor (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we could concisely describe a term with so many disparate meanings. Which of them should we describe? Anyway, this help desk is the wrong place to discuss the development of a disambiguation page. Try that article's talk page to propose changes. As an aside, I doubt the word "Hellenism" has been used for 5,000 years and would like to see a reliable source for that claim. Huon (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Lewin, part 2[edit]

Trying to create an article about a person who is clearly famous/notable (a simple google search of his name, "Ben Lewin," will yield results to prove this quickly) and not being able to post it due to questions of the person's notability... My references are good. My article was misjudged in my opinion. However, it really should be published ASAP since Ben Lewin has a new film coming out and many people will be searching for the wiki article which should have existed long ago. -O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odl1991 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a Google search is not a good indication of notability; see WP:GHITS. I have explained above why your references are problematic, and I, for one, agree with the reviewer that your draft does not establish Lewin's notability. Anyway, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and there's no need to create articles for people of dubious notability in anticipation of a certain event - quite the converse: If his new film generates some publicity and Lewin is discussed in reliable sources in that context, maybe we can use those sources to write a well-referenced article. Huon (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GYULA KOI[edit]

Hi! Anybody help for me? I fixed my contribution on Gyula Koi (reliable sources etc.). I wait for to change my contribution as a normal Wikipedia entry. Is the task of patrollers or who? I wait for the solution... Alkabala (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to become a normal Wikipedia article, that draft should indeed be reviewed again; you can submit it by add ing {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft. However, the sources you have given are all primary sources such as papers written by Gyula Koi; in order to establish his notability, we need to show that he has received significant coverage on reliable sources that are independent of him - that is, that others have written about him. Thus, in its current state the draft is likely to be declined again. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage or for scholarly articles (written by others!) discussing Koi's work. Huon (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness, my friend. Please, check the cahnges, if is it possible... Alkabala (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot read Hungarian and thus cannot check the additional references you have provided. Sources need not be in English (though that's obviously easier for our readers), but it may help to add translations of the relevant excerpts; see WP:NOENG for details. Another issue: You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the article's statements.^[1] I have provided an example; you can edit this section to see how the footnote was created. See also WP:Referencing for beginners for additional help with references and footnotes. Huon (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Like this.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/''Relativity'' (collection by Robert J. Sawyer)[edit]

Hi!

My article about "Relativity" was rejected. As it is a collection including many award-winning stories by a multiple-award-winning author, I'm not sure what more I needed to do to make it worthy of inclusion.

Do I need to add more reviews? I found many in blogs, but won't add those.

Thanks! FiverFan65 (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65[reply]

Notability is not inherited; it may be possible that the individual stories are notable without the collection itself being notable. Additional reviews would help, but they should be published by reliable sources - Doug's Book Reviews is a random guy's website without any indication of editorial oversight, for all I can tell, not a reliable source. The same would hold for reviews on blogs. The SF Site is better because it does have an editorial staff, but our notability criterion of "significant coverage" is usually interpreted to mean more than one good source - the more the better.

Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on what the reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject - I believe most of the current draft is not based on the reviews and seems unsourced. Huon (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slednecks y2k[edit]

can you locate the soundtrack for the vhs videotape called "Slednecks y2k"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.254.123 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alisha Underwood[edit]

Alisha has two boys she is a student at Jobcorps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.123.218 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely she is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. See also WP:BIO and WP:BLP for guidelines on biographies, especially biographies of living persons. Huon (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Myers[edit]

I've created an article called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Myers. No, it's not the Amy Myers (now Amy Myers Jaffe) who is a Middle East oil expert, but a British mystery writer who has penned dozens of books.

Obviously, in addition to the usual bit about creating a new page, I also have to tackle the disambiguation, but I'm not certain how to do so. Could you please advise?

Miss Ivonne (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think disambiguation is all that necessary; Myers and Jaffe don't share a last name. If you want to make sure, the easiest way would be hatnotes, for example {{for2}}, like this:

(and vice versa)

Your draft is currently heavily based on primary sources such as Myers' own website and her books. The only secondary source, the Goodreads profile, probably has very little editorial oversight (it looks like user-submitted content) and may not be all that reliable. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example of reliable secondary sources would be news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A project on machine vise.[edit]

pls i want a project write up on machine vise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.246.49 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help with drafts you have written. To do so, use the article wizard. To request someone else to write a draft, see WP:Requested articles. Huon (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Types of Songs[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to propose a new article called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Types of Songs, but I'm having trouble, in that when I submit it, it seems to either go blank or to be the same thing twice. I'm unclear as to what I'm doing wrong. I think it's ready to be resubmitted, but I'm nervous about submitting it blank or with multiple versions of itself. Any thoughts?

Thanks much,

Nblauss (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)nblauss[reply]

When you follow the instructions in the message box and click the "click here" link provided in the box, a new (empty) section is added to the end of the draft that contains only the review template and a comment informing you that saving that edit will not blank your draft. You can also re-submit the draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top.

However, I don't think you provide sufficient sources. The only source is a Merriam-Webster encyclopedia article on ballads that's used multiple times even though it has nothing to say about song types in general or, say, reels in particular. That's obviously not enough. It may be better to use dedicated books on music theory. Also, the song article itself discusses types of song in some detail; you don't mention quite a few of those types (such as art songs, for example). Huon (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Like this.

[1]