Help desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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.

May 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jasson Austin

Please help me to improve this article.

Shoneeee (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:SANTABABES/sandbox

SANTABABES (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)SANTABAESSANTABABES (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hugo Chavez (1954-2013)]]

We already have an article about Hugo Chávez - you are welcome to help improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the sandbox has been deleted as a copyvio. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected again

Please can you explain why this has been rejected yet again, despite it being exactly the same format as this entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaguard

Thanks

Armagard (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent reviewer of Draft:Armagard Limited declined it because the references do not establish the subject's notability. The reviewer never mentioned "format". The existing article you refered to is a very poor example - I expect it to be deleted soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and so it has been DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The two sources shown are from independent publications highlighting Armagard's award-winning status. If these are not satisfactory please could you tell us what is as the notability section and other 'helpful' resources are unclear.

Thanks.

@Armagard: You can disagree if you like but it's not up to you. You have essentially one source, the British Chamber of Commerce. The two URLs are both from that organization and about the same Thursday 28 November 2013 award. Any Chamber of Commerce is really only reliable for the awards they hand out as they're in the business of promoting business. Add reliable sources in order to meet notability criteria or the general notability guideline. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bo Barry

Can you tell me why the above referenced submission was declined? 68.40.41.10 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the review? It's the pink box at the top of the page. There is an additional review comment below the box. A number of links to useful guide pages are included in the review - please follow those links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons in the decline template are very general, and the guide pages they make reference to are extremely extensive and detailed instructions, that are applicable to related problems in many different types of articles. I assume that if someone comes here they want advice specific to their actual article, and we ought to be prepared to provide it, rather than just send them back again to what apparently they did not adequately understand. The very purpose of this help page is to offer personal advice.

More specifically, we need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases. The existing references are from a not-very-reliable newsletter, the advertising site he himself developed, the same site in the form of a newsletter on Facebook, and his own twitter. If what he has done is notable , there will be better sources that are truly independent of him, such as newspapers or trade magazinesIf you can find them, add them and resubmit the article. If not, there's no possibility of an article at this time. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martin Watier (May 17)

I would like to know what I have to do for my submission to be accepted. What kind of references should I add? Thank You.Danie Roy (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is multiple significant roles. See WP:ENTERTAINER Some of the roles listed would be sufficient if he were the actor , not just the voice actor. In practice, articles about voice actors usually need to show that the specific contributions have been recognized by a major award, or by articles in major publications discussing him. It is possible that the cinemaniax article might do so, but it seems to be a dead link. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martone Cycling Company

Did you read the sources I put down? They talk about the basket and the chain as a brand signature. I did not elaborate or use any sales terminology. There is no subjective language whatsoever in the article. I was very careful to phrase nothing in the article as it might be in an advertisement. If the article needs more sources, there are hundreds, but I didn't want there to be more lines of sources than there were lines of text. The company IS notable because it has been featured in dozens of newspapers, blogs, and magazines. It is also the ONLY bicycle brand (that I know of) in the niche that it occupies: high-design. Please, tell me exactly what needs to change to get this article accepted. I don't think the reviewers looked at the sources or did any research on their own to confirm the "notability." I basically just said, This is a bike company. It started here. You can recognize it by such and such. The colors are etc. How is that an advertisement? NickMartone (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been questioned as to whether it's the best way to do things, but at present, reviewers are not required to do research of their own to establish a subject's notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is sources. Looking at them, the first is essentially a press release, followed by some comments, not a full product review, in Huffington Post, a source we consider less than fully reliable. The second is a press release-product notice The third is another press release. The fourth, from Elle is an interview with him where the editor let him say whatever he wanted to: in other words, pure publicity. However, it does show that a reputable mainstream magazine thought him worthy of coverage. The fifth is another press release/product notice.

The requirement for references is that they provide substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. None of them really do that--they are minor notices, based upon press releases, or, in the case of the interview, not truly independent.

If the article were submitted to mainspace, it would be nominated for a AfD discussion, and the consensus would probably be to delete it. What you need is at least one better source: a full review, or an article about the company. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that the submission might have better been rejected under the "notability" (companies) criterion, rather than as an advertisement. Would be interested to know if DGG agrees... though I accept it doesn't make a huge difference since both decline reasons provide similar links (but different emphasis).

The one aspect that did seem overtly promotional was the use of the near-meaningless phrase "design-oriented". It may mean something to marketing people, but it means nothing to encyclopedia editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actually, yes. The reason I gave was exactly the notability criterion. The article was not primarily or greatly promotional, but basically descriptive, and should not have been rejected on that grounds. Describing a good product does tend to promote it to those interested, but this cannot be avoided if we are to have articles on products or companies--we have to say what they are or what they make. The test is whether the amount of detail is so great as to be only relevant to a prospective purchaser. For example, in this case, if they had described indetail the different models. The description of the different colors might be viewed as somewhat promotional. The product is described in the references as appealing more to fashion than to practicality, and it would not be unreasonable to have indicated that in the article.

As for the amount of explanation needed, if someone asks why the sources aren't sufficient, we have to explain why, which means looking at the sources. In fact, we should do that before rejecting/accepting an article in the first place--because otherwise, how can we say that they do or do not support notability? What we don't normally do at AfC unless we want to is look for additional sources ourself-- though I point out that in listing for deletion at AfD or prod or speedy, we are strongly advised though not absolutely required to do just that--see WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Moodie Black

Hello,

I received an email that my article, wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moodie Black, submitted for review, had been revised. It seems that article is still awaiting review, however. I just want to know if all is well with my article and that it is still in queue for review. Thank you. Jhiatus3 (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Jhiatus3[reply]

Yes this draft is awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avers (band)

Hi was wondering why the page I wanted to create titled Avers (band) was declined? Biancaalexia (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biancaalexia. This submission was declined because it was blank; you had not entered or saved any text or references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

The article about myself was declined. Why? I am verified on IMDB and other interne t sources. Can you tell me what I did wrong? Michael Daevid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uspinme2 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about yourself is discouraged, as explained in Wikipedia:AUTOBIO. A likely difficulty is that Wikipedia does not consider IMDB a reliable source. We have a notability guideline for actors at Wikipedia:NACTOR, so any article would need to demonstrate how you pass that guideline using independent reliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]