User talk:Nonsenseferret/Archive 1

Tom Hanlin
Thanks for your note on my talk page, asking me to take a look at the article about Tom Hamlin. I'm not a New Article Reviewer so I can't help you with that process, but the article looks ok to me. It seems clear that Mr. Hamlin passes the notability test. You have plenty of citations - not always an easy thing for someone of the pre-internet age. I wish the article included more biographical information (at least actual birth and death dates, death place, and anything about his personal life) but maybe it just isn't available. (Were there no obituaries? Those are usually good sources for this kind of information.) I am unfamiliar with the format you used of citing reviews separately, but I have no problem with it. With the lists of his writings, some people prefer a text format, but IMO a list format such as you have used is actually preferable. I'm not sure that "Bibliography" is the best title for writings ABOUT him; usually "Bibliography" for a writer would refer to works BY him. But I am no expert on articles about authors. Good luck, and keep up your good contributions! --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, one other thing I forgot to say: you should not refer to him as "Tom" in the article. After the first mention of his name, you should refer to him as either "he" or "Hamlin" - like a newspaper article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And check that you have consistently italicized titles - you missed a few. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again, I've made quite a few tweaks following your comments, is a lot better now I think nonsense  ferret  15:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Tom Hanlin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Mkdw talk 01:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Freebirdthemonk Howdy!  18:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Sammy Barr, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Freebirdthemonk Howdy!  19:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Sammy Gilmore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Freebirds Howdy!  04:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sammy Barr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harstine Island ferry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mason County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The British Central Africa Company Ltd
Dear Nonsenseferret,

Firstly, thank you for reviewing the article I posted on The British Central Africa Company Ltd.

However, I have to query the grading of Start class. The criteria for this are, "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." Taking the sources first, the article cites almost 30 separate sources, of which around 20 are academic writers well-know in their field of Malawian history. On the incompleteness, it is difficult to think either what could be added to what there is in the article or what other sources there might be. I have, for example used JStor, which gives access to several thousand journals for all they had on The British Central Africa Company Ltd.

I lived and worked in Malawi for some years, have re-visited several times and also studied it academically. The article is one of a series on three of the four colonial-era trading companies (an article in the fourth already existed, but I greatly expanded it). the first on A L Bruce Estates is slightly shorter than this, with less references, but was awarded a B-grade and the second on Blantyre and East Africa Ltd was very slightly shorter with a similar amount of references, and is also a B-grade.

I realise that grading is rather subjective, but when I look at a Wikipedia article, I generally check the grading and would not be very trustful of a Start class article. On the assumption that others also check gradings, I think it should be re-graded. It is probably too short for Good Article status, and lacks illustrations (although I would argue that its content meets the GA criteria), but to me a B-grade is the least it deserves.

Would you please reconsider? Regards Shscoulsdon (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page --nonsense ferret  13:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nonsenseferret,

Many thanks for the quick response, I do appreciate the work that reviewers do tackling a big backlog of articles. Regards Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Declined submission of Nanoscale Journal article
Could you please explain how it is that you find that a reference to a scientific journal's website is insufficient as reference or somehow "unverifiable"?

Best regards, Jonas Henriksson (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * responded on your talk page --nonsense ferret  13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I read your reply. In response, I have added a reference to the ISI Web of Knowledge. There I have found that the impact factor of the journal is 5.914. The impact factor is the most commonly used measure to judge how notable the journal is, at least for people who are acquainted with the field. That ought to be proof that it is a notable, authoritative journal. You requested that academics should have written about it, but it is actually highly unusual that people write about this journal or that journal, unless it is an extremely famous one, such as Nature or Science. That would not be the proper measure to assess a journal's importance. This is because it just wouldn't be very clever in a political sense to make public comments, whether positive or negative, regarding what you think about a certain journal. I also advise you that most journals that can be found on wikipedia have only their own website as reference, for instance Nanotechnology (journal) and Nanoscale Research Letters.

Rejection of "Phil McNulty" article


why'd u reject the article? are you even an Admin? how come it says " Declined by Nonsenseferret 0 seconds ago. Last edited by Nonsenseferret 0 seconds ago." even though it was more than 0 seconds ago. No matter how many times I refresh the page this doesnt change and that seems a bit fishy to me... I don't know what to believe now.

Also, do you know know who Phil McNulty is? How many references is sufficient?

Merci Username talkpage (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded at your talkpage, thanks --nonsense ferret  22:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply
Thanks, I now know references shouldn't be written by him.

But you failed to answer the following: are you even an Admin? how come it says " Declined by Nonsenseferret 0 seconds ago. Last edited by Nonsenseferret 0 seconds ago." even though it was more than 0 seconds ago. No matter how many times I refresh the page this doesnt change and that seems a bit fishy to me... I don't know what to believe now.

Appreciate a reply asap. Also, would you like to work on Phil McNulty page together? Username talkpage (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded at your talkpage, thanks --nonsense ferret  22:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of MedcX Group contribution
I am confused why this article has been rejected on the grounds of unreliable sources - I have used those used by our Peers (Assura and Primary Health Properties) namely our London Stock Exchange Listing, our Annual Report etc which is a publicly accessible document. Please advise where I am going wrong. Kind regards. Katie.Kinnes (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * responded at your talkpage, thanks --nonsense ferret  16:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wheatley Associates declined
Hello,

I fail to see why you have declined the entry when entries for other comparable and lesser have been accepted. In fact, this entry closely followed that of a competitor entry - Opti-Time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opti-Time_Company - which is surprisingly more commercial in its outlook and this entry is more factual. I could go on and list endless other examples which have been accepted. If the reason is a lack of substance in terms of referencing, then I am even more confused because a previous entry with over 30 valid and substantiated references was turned down by another reviewer with a reputation for turning down over-referenced submissions on the basis that the extent of the referencing is simply trying to substantiate something that is not substantial! Your detailed reasons, rather than the standard turn down comment, would be much appreciated, so that something acceptable can be drafted.

Thanks for your help. Regards, Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kepmason (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded on your talkpage, thanks --nonsense ferret  13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

References Needed for Jamie Smart (Author) Page
My article Jamie Smart (Author) was declined for lack of references. Can you give me an example of a) what kind of information contained in the page might benefit from a reference, or b) what kind of referenced material not now present might be included to make the article conform to your standards? Thanks in advance, BMcKenna44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcKenna44 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded at your talkpage --nonsense ferret  12:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of "Adam Pendleton" article
Hello. I work for the artist Adam Pendleton, and my entries are continually deleted for copyright infringement. The sources I have been citing contain information that originated with Adam himself. I've shortened the article and only used one source, and it was still deleted. I cited Pace Gallery's website, but all information on their site came from Adam and is not under their copyright. I resubmitted with no sources hoping it would get by, but it was deleted by you. I've emailed the past editors/admins and have not received any help with this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.243.123 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussed in #wikipedia-en-help --nonsense ferret  01:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Houssemayne Du Boulay
Please could you tell me why the entry on Francois (Francis) Houssemayne Du Boulay was declined. He was a prominent Hugenot and philanthropist and was the largest holder og goverment bonds which suppported Britains efforts in the Napoleonic wars reff David Agnew 1821-1887 in his book Protestant exiles from France in the reign of Louis 14th " was the alrgest holder of goverment stock for a number of years.  This in itself was significant in that Nathan Mayer Rothschild was also competing for this place! Thank you for your help. (Hugenothistory (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
 * responded on your talkpage, thanks --nonsense ferret  15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Rejected content
Specifically, why was my submission rejected regarding the company Staxi? There are many other companies with very comercial entries in Wikipedia. Please let me know ASAP so that I might make necessary changes.

Thank you

Mosstrooper1965 Mosstrooper1965 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, why was the Staxi entry rejected? Please let me know ASAP because I would quickly like to make changes to comply with whatever guidlens. Although, between you and me, there is a lot of corporate marketing crap you folks allow and I have trouble following how a company founded to help handicapped people get around better (the founders son was left crippled after a car accident, prompting the invention).

Thanks for your speedy reply.

Mosstrooper1965Mosstrooper1965 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded on your talkpage --nonsense ferret  16:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Alex Goot
Ok, submission was declined. But how do I do to creat the article Alex Goot and redirect to List of YouTube personalities?? Minerva97 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the criteria are for adding names to that list, certainly you would require reliable sourcing - best discussed on the list article talk page I would say. Hope that helps --nonsense ferret  16:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Declined Article "Sparks Nevada, Marshal on Mars"
Hi Nonsenseferret,

We have just received the notification informing us that you recommended our recent article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sparks_Nevada,_Marshal_on_Mars) for speedy deletion.

We note that you have cited 'copyright violations', though we could not see which website you felt we had taken content from.

We of course have no intention of infringing on copyrighted content, and would be very grateful of you could please let us know what section of our article is the offending portion - we will be happy to remove it, and then resubmit the page for approval!

Thank you for your time, and all the best!

TurbineMidnight (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded on your talkpage --nonsense ferret  16:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia.
I need some elaboration about why my articles where declined.

Could it be possible that you're unaware of current events in the world?

I also need help in uploading pictures onto my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hor Mert Kemwar (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded on your talkpage --nonsense ferret  10:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sparks Nevada, Marshal on Mars
Hi Nonsenseferret,

Thank you for your reply, and for amending our article:   Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sparks Nevada, Marshal on Mars We have now updated and added to the article. It is not likely that we will be able to provide alternative references to those currently included, as we are simply providing synopses of individual audio podcasts (that we have linked to). We have created this article in response to a request from the creators of the Thrilling Adventure Hour podcast. The Thrilling Adventure Hour wikipedia article has been accepted using the same or fewer references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrilling_Adventure_Hour Please advise if our article is now suitable for publication.

Thanks again, TurbineMidnight (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded on your talkpage --nonsense ferret  10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Sammy Gilmore, Nonsenseferret!

Wikipedia editor Anne Delong just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you for creating a well-referenced article. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Anne Delong's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Sammy Barr, Nonsenseferret!

Wikipedia editor Anne Delong just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Another well referenced article! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Anne Delong's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SFSFL
Hi Eric thanks for the feedback. I have cited 9 sources to the page on the amateur SFSFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxschweitzer (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I think you wanted EricEnfermo - I wasn't involved in that review. --nonsense ferret  21:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Iain Morrison
Hello Nonsenseferret, Big thanks for taking the time to check over my Iain Morrison (Musician) submission and approving the page. Tripping alone (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Tripping Alone.
 * no problem, thanks for the article --nonsense ferret  22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Chrominance Decoder Rejection
Hi, I've researched this album for about three years now, I want to know why you rejected the article? I really want to know what credibility you have to reject it. I've been a music historian since 1992 and I've researched this through the Ideal and Tricatel website, as well as conversations with Producer Bertrand Burgalat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinaAngel (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to see anything in the article which brings it within any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Wikipedia isn't a repository for original research so a chat with the producer isn't an appropriate source to use. You need to establish notability by including multiple references to significant independent coverage in reliable sources.  These tend to be published sources like national newspapers and books. --nonsense  ferret  23:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoax-hunting
Sorry, I have been slow about giving advice on hoaxes. In fact, there is no particular place to look for them (apart from CAT:HOAX), it's just a matter of keeping a fairly sceptical frame of mind while looking at articles you come across in the course of new Page Patrol or AfC or otherwise. Of course, something like an IP blanking the article with edit summary "Guys, this is all made up!" (which has happened) should be a cue for investigation, but mainly it's a matter of feeling something is not right.

When suspicious:


 * Check the references - are they actually about the nominal subject and do they confirm the claims?


 * Feed some sentences into Google. That may show that the article is copyvio; it may also show that it has been copied from another WP article with names changed - a common ploy by wannabe football stars.


 * Look at the history. If it was submitted by an SPA author, that's a suspicious sign - not conclusive, but hoaxers usually use a new throwaway account in case they are detected.


 * Get some expert opinions: for instance, a post on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Physics or WP:WikiProject Mathematics will bring someone to check out possible hoaxes in those fields.


 * And, of course, Google and other searches to see whether you can find any confirmation. Absence of Ghits for someone claimed to be a world-renowned superstar is damning. Allmusic and similar sites should show succesful pop groups.The main football clubs have websites where you can check someone's claim to be in their first team.


 * On a more trivial level, anything in the new page list that ends in "-ism" is very probably a religion or philosophy made up one day.

User is starting a programme of resuscitating deleted hoax articles as sub-pages of WP:List of hoaxes so that they can be studied, e.g. List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Hilfiger High School. You can get to them and to their AfD pages from the List article.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

VocaLink Submission
Hi Nonsenseferret

The PR manager took the copy from our boiler plate so can completely understand the rejection on the bases of salesy and non referenced. I am taking over this project now and will make sure that the next submission adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry we are quite new at this but firmly feel that vocalink is a very significant company particularly in the UK as without it the entire payments infrastructure powering banks and large aquirers like Paypal, World Pay and Visa would just fall over.

Cheers MichaelHarrington123 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)charles (Head of Digital)


 * noted, and appreciated, I would however direct your attention to the policy at WP:COI which exists as much to protect the reputation of your company as anything else: to be seen to be writing your own article is not necessarily something that reflects so well particularly if you look at best practice guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. --nonsense ferret  00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Assura Group
Hi - Please can you have another look at Assura Group. I have done some more work on it. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * responded on article talk page, thanks --nonsense ferret  00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of Boxtv.com
BoxTV.com declined. The articled titled BoxTV.com has been written taking into consideration all the factors that are to be kept in mind while writing an article on wikipedia, and even the references that I have shared are those that are notable in terms of their visibility. Boxtv.com has been started by India's largest media group - The Times Group who's name to fame is the largest English newspaper by circulation. I am not associated to boxtv.com or The Times Group in any way other than as a subscriber. Boxtv has gained a huge following recently in India and it should be considered enclyclopedic content especially since it has an international subscriber base too. Gocrazy69 (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)gocrazy69


 * I can only advise you that articles need to have references to multiple examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources in order to be accepted and that these should be carefully referenced in the article following the guidance here in WP:REFB. I hope that will be helpful. --nonsense  ferret  15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Will work on it. Gocrazy69 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)gocrazy69

We Are The Lazer Viking article.
I resubmitted the An Albatross - We Are The Lazer Viking article & cited four decent sources to back up the information I typed out. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be done to get the article running. It is undoubtedly the band's best known work and deserves the wiki page! Cheers, -EBGIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrickoolaid23 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * given that the sources you have added seem to be in the nature of blog type reviews, I would be surprised if it were accepted this time round. If I were creating an article about a band I would start with WP:NMUSIC and try to work out which of these criteria might be met by the band.  In some cases the answer might be none, in which case no article is possible.  If they had a nationally charting album or single then the job is a bit easier, as you can evidence meeting that criteria quite easily and also there is very likely to be a lot of independent coverage in reliable sources which can be used.  As regards blog coverage, because they tend to be very inclusionist, and don't have much in the way of strict editorial policies and fact checking etc, it obviously has a lot less weight than say a review in the Times Newsapaper or similar. Hope that helps a bit --nonsense  ferret  15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Submission?
hi! I appreciate looking at my page for submission. I recently changed the Rescources to show official proof of my information. I was wondering how long it took for it to go under submission again. This is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Generoso_Pope_Foundation Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuck24 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Review waiting times can be very lengthy at the moment, even up to 4 weeks, as there is a significant backlog. I would recommend that in the meantime you have a look at the video at WP:REFB to see how to improve the way the references are done in the article.  Any extra references to coverage of the subject in reliable sources to verify the article and establish it is notable is likely to increase your chances of a successful review outcome. --nonsense  ferret  15:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Albie Jacob
Albie Jacob imdb.com Albie Jacob linkedin Albie Jacob cosunset.com Albie Jacob jnpllc.wix.com/jnpllc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.164.208 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * not sure if this is a question - if you are trying to add more sources to an article that was refused then do so in the article and resubmit it for review. However, sites like imdb and linkedin are not reliable sources and don't help your article at all. --nonsense  ferret  23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Safety Steps
Hi I've made your recommended changes to the new 'Mobile Safety Steps' - Removed the picture and added one of my own taken recently - Removed the link to the manufacturer ( I thought it was interesting that something is still made in the UK) - Added a couple of citations - what I'm finding difficult is that there isn't all that much information - I've researched as much as I can from a technical spec. and safety angle. Most of the searches just link to manufacturers or sales websites - I would be open to looking for any specific suggestions?

One of the reasons that I thought it would make a good Wiki page is precisely because there isn't much info on them and yet they seem to be springing up everywhere - stores, warehouses (like our own), airports, building sites, libraries, maintenance and repair of machinery - and they are very distinct entity from ladders.

All the best

Richb0101 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you can find coverage in reliable sources then it will probably work out ok, if there isn't much coverage then that usually presents a bit of a problem for wikipedia on two counts: firstly that there's nothing which can independently verify each and every claim made in the article, and secondly, that there is no independent verification that the subject is sufficiently widely known about to meet the threshold of notability required for inclusion in wikipedia. The research to find those sources can be a painful job at times, it is often not clear when you start an article that there will be enough sources, and to get halfway through and then not get it accepted can be annoying. As to where to look, probably well-known specialist magazines or  journals might be your best bet to find some independent reviews of these products if they are principally industrial in nature.  I appreciate that can be a bit hard to get hold of unless you are in the industry. --nonsense  ferret  23:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Possession with Purpose
I don't get it... this is a 'new' approach to measuring the success of a team in activities related to scoring goals. It's not something that can be patented - to date there is no reference in wikipedia about the accepted phrase in world soccer called 'possession with purpose'... this phrase is not new to soccer - but what it means in soccer is new.

This specific approach cannot be verified by outside organizations becuase they don't know about it yet...

ChrisChrisGluck (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

possession with purpose
What if I were to get some quotes by Caleb Porter (Head Coach of Portland Timbers FC) and Asst Head Coach Sean McAuley (Portland Timbers FC) to substantiate this approach being used to measure possession with purpose?

ChrisChrisGluck (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ball Possession and Possession With Purpose
I have added info into Ball Possession - please advise - tried to create a written link in transitioning from 'ball possession' to 'possession with purpose'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGluck (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * in order to get an article accepted you need to establish that the subject is notable. You can do this by pointing to coverage of that subject in reliable sources like widely recognised reliable sources such as for example newspapers/magazines and published books that are found in libraries. I hope that makes sense - the test isn't whether you or I think that a subject is important, but if we can show that there is widespread recognition of its importance as evidenced by published sources.  Hope that makes sense - if you can find good sources then add them to the article and resubmit it for review. --nonsense  ferret  20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Liberty Ships:Brunswick, GA
The reason given that this article was declined was that the source was not reliable. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources".

I would like to challenge this as the source is a reliable source. The following is a description of the source:

"The Digital Library of Georgia is a gateway to Georgia's history and culture found in digitized books, manuscripts, photographs, government documents, newspapers, maps, audio, video, and other resources. Many of the materials are from the holdings of GALILEO member institutions, and the Digital Library of Georgia continues to grow through its partnerships with libraries, archives, museums, government agencies, and allied organizations across the state."

67.187.39.226 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * my advice to you is that one source is not sufficient for any article. I explained that you should add more sources.  If you don't like that advice then you can always resubmit your article. --nonsense  ferret  00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Safety Steps
OK - I'll try and find some better references. I could see if there is an industry journal that will do something if they haven't already. Is there a time limit as it may take a while? Thanks Richard Richb0101 (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * no time limit, good luck --nonsense ferret  13:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Liberty Ships: Brunswick, GA
I just need to know if the topic is one that can stand on its own. I will be adding to this with a local High School Class. The port is in our town and a relevant topic for research. There is not an article specific to this port. Will it stand on its own? How can the class contribute if it is not an approved article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottiebarrow (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I've been asked to comment as I'm somewhat more versed in our procedures for school projects. Have you looked at WP:SUP? It has a ton of information to help you out, and you can even have someone help you run the Wikipedia side of the course! From experience, a class project works better when everyone works on different articles, or in small groups of 2-3, not all on the same article. If you're intent on using this one article, I'd suggest creating it at http://enwp.org/User:USERNAMEOFTEACHER/NAMEOFPAGE as a subpage of the teacher's userspace, and then anyone can edit it but it's still just a draft :) Hope this helps! gwickwire  talk editing 14:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd add a few comments too, following gwickwire's kind contribution. The subject you have chosen seems entirely reasonable - it was rejected because only a single reference was provided.  If you find a few different sources, I don't anticipate any great problem - you can use books from the library and newspaper articles and suchlike to improve the article - once you've added a source or two then you can resubmit.  A few additional things that may be helpful to you though, firstly make 100 sure you understand the distinction between original research which is not suitable for this encyclopedia, and encyclopedic writing.  Definitely consult the schools page mentioned above, and also additional sources of help might be WikiProject Ships where you can find guidance and help from people with a particular interest in ships and shipbuilding.  I note that there is a large section about liberty ships in the article for Brunswick, GA so it might be some of that content could be transferred across to your article.  Hope this helps, best of luck --nonsense  ferret  15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Risk Services Group Inc..
I work at this company which the website is about and I want this published. I want this information as it is from the website. I dont want to change anything. Can it be published?


 * The best advice I can offer is to point you in the direction of WP:PSCOI and suggest that you reconsider. --nonsense ferret  21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Edmund Battersby, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! nonsense ferret  01:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ACT
First off, by your grammar, you might be in England?

I do not want to spend a lot of time writing up something which should already be included in Wiki. My goal was to *start* a page others more knowledgeable than I can add to, because I find it embarrassing to Wiki there is no reference to an organization which represents thousands of people on par with the AFL-CIO, NLRA, and other historical collective bargaining-related groups which have Wiki pages. I did not intend this to be a conclusion, simply a start. Feel free to rewrite, makes no difference to me, as long as *something* can be found at Wiki, if simply because the reason I started this page was that  I was trying to do research on the organization, and found nothing where there should be a complete reference page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.146.244 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can request that an article be created at Requested_articles - it might even be something that is relevant to WikiProject Organized Labour so perhaps it is possible to suggest it there. However, in my experience it is unlikely that suggestions will be followed up, and I would encourage you to have a go - no great expertise in this area is required - I personally think the subject could be very interesting and would likely be a great addition to wikipedia if you can find a few more sources such as books/newspaper articles etc that just talk a bit about the union.  There is a threshold that needs to be met before the article can be approved, but once its there, then it may well encourage others to help out too. I have created a few pages in the past of union representatives in the past - see Sammy Barr and Sammy Gilmore - if you are anything like me you'll enjoy seeing it through. Just a thought. --nonsense  ferret  17:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

AFC attack pages
In the case of this user, I don't think it's appropriate to add a template to their page that thanks them in any way for a submission that was a blatant and disgusting attack page on a named young woman. In future I would suggest warning them and linking the AFC page instead. I would suggest never using the AFC decline template in the case of blatant attack pages. Otherwise we're saying "Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!" to the wrong people entirely. I've removed it from this user's page. Thanks for your time. INeverCry  22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Howarth
Hi Ferret

Rather puzzled over deletion of Kevin Howarth. As far as I knew it wasn't live (unless I did it by mistake!) Otherwise it was just in my testing area - into which I had cut and pasted a list of films purely for my own future reference when I came to actually writing and expanding the article.

picknick9912:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Picknick99 (talk)


 * not deleted - it was submitted for review, and is declined - see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kevin_Howarth_(Actor) --nonsense ferret  13:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Stewardship economy
and convinced me that it wasn't mainstream, but had sufficient independent source commentary. What do you think? I should probably add those as further reading. EllenCT (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add my comments here for ease of following the conversation. I think those two you've cited seem to be blogs which afaik wouldn't count as reliable sources within the meaning of WP:RS. I'm not in any way an expert in economics which is why I didn't review this article myself, however the warning signs for me are that the article seems to have been written by the author of the book that the article seems to be promoting, and secondly lots of citations were used to reliable sources which did not mention the theory - and could not have done so as it was only written in 2011.  Really with academic theories, I would personally prefer to see a long list of articles in widely respected peer reviewed academic journals. Not sure what you think? --nonsense  ferret  10:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I notice it is actually a self-published book. --nonsense ferret  10:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did notice that it was written by the author of the book, but that the book is available for free download, so I'm not concerned about the commercial aspect. I'm not sure I would call those blog sources because they are both the ordinary publications of a UK think tank and publisher; the latter staff-signed. To say that they're just blogs would be like calling a Brookings Institution blog post equivalent to someone's blogspot. In general though, land value taxes are very common and becoming more popular, and if NEF and Shepheard-Walwyn think Pratt's take is notable, I'm not going to deny it. Pratt's a big name in Africa economic development. I guess, looking at WP:BK, it boils down to whether you think the NEF and Shepheard-Walwyn are "non-trivial." Well, New Economics Foundation has an article, and they're a big deal as far as I'm concerned. Shepheard-Walwyn's review is non-trivial, I would say, because they're a publisher and it's not their imprint. They stake their reputation with the customers who buy their books on being able to recommend good ones. EllenCT (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I note your points, I have searched my university library and can find little reference to this phrase. I suspect there are enough issues of sustance here that merits further discussion at AfD so I'm going to nominate. I hope you won't take that too personally - the last thing I want to do is discourage enthusiastic editors. --nonsense ferret  14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do add your contributions to the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Stewardship_economy the more views we get the better. --nonsense ferret  14:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rodney K. Miller article submission
Thank you for reviewing the article on Rodney K. Miller. I was unable to locate your specific remarks other than to find it was declined. Can you guide me to your critique so that I can revise as needed? thank you! Athalie White AW White 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athaliewhite (talk • contribs)
 * this took a bit of investigating - apparently the version you submitted to me was saved on the talkpage of the article submitted here at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rodney_K._Miller (vers B) which is the talk page of the article submitted at Articles_for_creation/Rodney_K._Miller (vers A) - I've never seen this before so took me a while to work out what had happened. Clearly the version I was looking at had no sources at all. As regards the article, it would be a really good idea to view the video at WP:REFB which will show you how to do the references properly so they appear correctly in the article.  If you tidy it up, vers A is the one you should try to resubmit, but I would say if you can add any additional newspaper articles about Rodney, then this would be helpful to bolster the case for notability --nonsense  ferret  20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Submission declined
You declined my submission for Articles for creation/No More Sad Refrains: The Anthology because it wasn't adequately supported by reliable sources. Why are these sources not adequate. Is the format of the reference inadequate (not enough information), the type of reference (Official Sandy Denny webpage and Allmusic.com Sandy Denny entry), or some other reason? Wikizenji (talk)
 * in order to establish that a musical work is notable within the terms of WP:NMUSIC I'd be looking for sources such as national newspaper/magazine reviews, evidence of having charted on the national billboard or similar. --nonsense ferret  20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Parshall Flumes
All feedback is good. I've gone in and added the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Water Measurement Manual and M.G. Bos' Discharge Measurement Structures as additional sources. Part of the problem is not being able to reference into specific sections of the ASTM and ISO standards. While ASTM and ISO are national / international standards bodies, access to their content is paid only - so while it was important to let readers now about them, there was no good way to let readers link into them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhorse819 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Norfolk and Norwich Art Circle.
I written this article as co-author of Wide Skies on which Brian Watts (dec'd) also assisted. The copyright is jointly owned by me and Norfolk and Norwich Art Circle 2003, of which I am President and soon to be treasurer. The 1985 anniversary publication is also copyright of NNAC 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrienne May (talk • contribs) 10:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The key thing to be aware of is that there is a minimum requirement of notability for any organisation to have an article about them on wikipedia - the conditions for this are per WP:CORP. Broadly speaking you need to provide references to multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources such as national newspapers, peer reviewed journals, widely published books etc. The content of the article should be built up using references to that source material so that it is completely verifiable by someone unfamiliar with the subject. The content of the article should be entirely neutral and objective (so bear in mind that writing the article as a member of an organisation, about that organisation, is technically a conflict of interest, and so requires particular care). I hope this makes sense, please feel free to ask further questions. If you can find some sources and add them to the article before resubmitting, then it will increase your chances of having it accepted.  To see how to create references in the correct style see the video at WP:REFB. --nonsense  ferret  11:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Chebotaryov theorem
Hello, I added several sources to the previously declined submission, I think I submitted again but I'm not sure. Mauricebench (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * discussed in #wikipedia-en-help - article correctly submitted, referred to project mathematics. --nonsense ferret  15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A Wasted Life submission denied
Hello, i've been fairly busy and I didn't notice my article had been reviewed. You said that my article needed more refs to establish notability. Well I already had two references and the song had it's own page on songmeanings.com. Also I searched "A Wasted Life" on google and I found more results about the song than about mentaly depressed teens who recently commited suicide! Please relook back into my article. -- JoshBlitz (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz
 * If you wish to resubmit it then I would advise you to include references to significant independent coverage in reliable sources that establish the album is notable - that would be things such as reviews in national newspapers or magazines. songmeanings isn't a reliable source - like wikipedia anyone can post information there. --nonsense  ferret  23:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well technicaly newspapers and magazines wouldn't review a song by itself. It would have to be a single, backed by another track. And this song wasn't a single. And it's not an album. It's from an album, whose wikipedia page has three references from three different reviewing companies. On another note, if I find a review of this song on the internet, post it in the external links, but not reference it, would that establish the notability of the song? And if I did include the references, where would I put them? --JoshBlitz (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz
 * the best advice is to have a look at WP:NSONG which is the criteria a song would have to meet for an article of its own --nonsense ferret  23:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A belated thank you for your thank you
Thanks for your note about Julia Park whatsit (Glasgow lifeboat)! Libby norman (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Han Kun Law Offices
Hi Nonsense Ferret:

I don't understand how the article still reads like an advertisement as the other Chinese law firm articles that I referred to feature similar formats (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jun_He_Law_Offices, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacheng_Law_Offices), and yet they were approved.

Would it be best to remove the list of practice areas? What do you recommend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyhuanghk (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * the answer is that those articles seem like they might have a reasonable risk of being deleted, so to use them as an example is a bad idea. The best thing to do is find independent coverage of the firm in reliable sources such as newspapers and add it to the article and resubmit. this independent coverage is really important to verify the content of the article, but also to establish that the firm is well known enough to justify an article here. Hope that makes sense - sorry for the delay in getting back to you. --nonsense ferret  21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ausssie Skools
Thanks for your help. Just to make a reasonable distinction - we don't have "school districts" in Australia. Each individual school is a stand alone although some may have a few campuses. I have copied the links (3) you gave me referring to notability.

This is the link to Schools in Victoria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Victoria,_Australia#H_3

You will see that many of the Catholic and Independent Schools listed have Wikipages already (most without any Wiki citations / warnings), while not a lot of the State Schools do. The reason is that it's up to one of the parents in the State School's to volunteer to do it. Many of those same (Catholic & Independent Schools) are both combined Primary and Secondary (and also have Pre-School) within the same school / location.

It is rare for a State school to have Primary and Secondary together, although a few have Prep to Grade 7 or 8 rather than the standard P to G6.

I will do my homework and resubmit soon.

If you wish to make further comments then I look forward to receiving.

froggy — Preceding unsigned comment added by FroggyPeterson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * seems reasonable to me. It makes sense that a school that was both primary and secondary would have an article, because it is generally assumed that there 'would' be enough material to write an article about a secondary school. Similarly for primary schools it is assumed that there wouldn't be. However in either case the presumption could be overturned by actual evidence, so it is certainly not unreasonable to do a good bit of research to try and find sources that you could use to establish a case for notability per WP:N. However, notability is a relatively high bar, and the only primary schools that I think tend to survive deletion discussions are when there is some big news event that involved the school (ie national press coverage).
 * The whole primary/secondary distinction is not one that I personally tend to agree with, but it has built up over a period of time amongst the editors that contribute to deletion discussions regularly. Schools that are particularly PR savvy tend to create pages for themselves, in many cases without going through a review process, but those pages as you've seen will generally end up at 'articles for deletion' discussion - the only delay is the lack of willing volunteers to go round checking for them relative to the number of pages that get created.
 * Anyway good luck with the article, if you have any questions do ask here or back at #wikipedia-en-help. --nonsense ferret  21:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

KidGlov Page
I have added sources at the bottom of my page since it was declined. What is my next step to get this approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn Wineman (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can follow the instructions in the pink box on the article - basically click where it says click and immediately save - to resubmit the article for review. However, having had a brief look at the article, it seems to me a long way from meeting the criteria of WP:NCORP - of the references that you have included none of the social networking ones count because they are neither reliable nor independent, and the news article you have cited seems to be in the nature of a press release (see per WP:CORPDEPTH ).  I appreciate that all these guidelines are a bit hard to get your head around initially, however the basic point is that you need to demonstrate objectively that a company or organisation is pretty well known by showing that independently it has been written about in national press and books etc. Without that sort of coverage, even the best written article will be unlikely to be accepted.  I hope that makes sense - do feel free to ask any questions. --nonsense  ferret  20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)