Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Discussion Room/Archive 1

Nathalie Hambro
This one is a bit tough. I couldn't find any evidence of it being a copyvio, but it seems to be biased in favour of her. The awards and such seem to make her notable, but google turns up mostly bookselling sites and not a lot of independent coverage. Any thoughts? --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed the header there - the page got archived a few minutes ago. I'll look through it and let you know what I think. Hersfold (talk/work) 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The first four sources are no good - myspace and youtube aren't any good, and fullofchic.com is her own site. The "MacNaughton Platinum Award" gets absolutely no hits on Google, so I have to assume it's not really a big deal - if it is, someone needs to add some funds to their advertising budget. the Glenfiddich Award does have an stub on WP, so presumably it's notable. This site does list her as having received a special award in 1982 for the book listed in the submission.
 * The NPOV issues are pretty minor, IMO. They can easily be clipped out after the article is created without affecting the context any. The article needs some work for grammar and spelling anyway (*twitch*), so you might as well take care of that at the same time.
 * It should be ok to create, provided that the sources listed do actually mention her somewhere and back up the claims about the awards (the only claim to notability). I'm not able to check the Glenfiddich site as it's alcohol related and I'm not 21, but the other sites don't seem to mention awards. Not even Amazon.com (which isn't reliable anyway) mentions the MacNaughton award for the one book. If the sources don't back up the claims made, then it's an afc v in my book. Hersfold (talk/work) 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Today
This guy really wants his article in, as he sent it in twice. The school seems notable, but doesn't it need to assert why it's notable? I'm wondering if we should send it back (again) to have him work on it some more, or if we should just create it as is. Hersfold (talk/work) 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally one of the notability criteria for American high schools is to list at least one notable alumnus/alumna. This school satisfies that criterion with Frank Fahey, so I say Create. Caknuck 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Create it's a seminary, not a high school. Seminaries to me tend to be more notable than high schools without any other factors.  Kwsn (Ni!) 15:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I say create, it seems legitimate and verifiable to me, and the school/seminary seems reputable enough. Kookamunga187 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, I'll go accept it. Thanks. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, oops. This article already exists, but is in sore need of the additonal sources provided by the IP. I'll let him know so they can get added in. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regenstrief Institute
Another one from me. This looks like a pretty good article, with more references than the whole rest of the page combined. Problem is, a lot of the external links don't seem to relate to the subject, and it doesn't strike me as very neutral - almost ad-like in places. I can't really decide, so what do you lot think? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of information. The article just says the services; they should not be included, if the article is to be created. -- Boricua  e  ddie  18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be that the topic is notable, but that the text has too much promotional material that needs to be trimmed, also there is explanatory material that is probably unnecessary. I was going to accept it when I ssaw the discussion alert. Graeme Bartlett 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bartlett, it needs to list the notable things it's done and not much else. I'm going to go ahead and be WP:BOLD and create the article Regenstrief Institute.  Please feel free to edit after I take down the inuse tag.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First pass at trimming complete. References that are not in use need to go though. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles_for_creation/Today
Seeing the tag would normally very quickly suggest it doesn't meet WP:N. I did a quick Google search anyway, however that turned problematic as the term "pinot" is a common one so a lot of the returns has nothing to do with the software. I added in a few terms to try and narrow down the result, and I do see possibly some third party secondary sources talking about it. So, I'm a bit unsure about it. Any thoughts? KTC 20:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Already denied by Precious Roy. I would've done the same thing. -- Boricua  e  ddie  20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless it's a "famous" Beta like Windows Server 2008 Beta or it did something notable like cause someone to die, drop it on WP:N grounds. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about the gum shortage
I know registered users who patrol here are here to do two things: create articles and chew gum. And, apparently, they are recently all out of gum. Amazingly, according to User:KTC, this has resulted in clearing up a two-year backlog. I am very, very impressed, as I was only here a few months back bing and moaning about an an article I submitted, with a half dozen WP:RS's, where the guy was on death row, scheduled to be executed in a matter of hours when I submitted, yet given a ninety day stay, and yet I still wondered, what seemed like a week later, who, at the project's rate, would win the race. Now I'm submitting redirects and like five minutes don't have to pass before everything is all set. So... who the heck needs a barnstar? Don't be shy. -- 146.115.58.152 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The backlog is still not all cleared up, take a look at Articles_for_creation/List-2006, there is still 9 months worth to assess! But at least all the current contributions seem to be considered, quickly. Graeme Bartlett 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, other people here volunteer their time to the encyclopedia. The influx of new articles, some of the vandalism, results in a backlog dating back years. If you wish to create new articles without the wait, please create an account for yourself instead of moaning. Thanks. MasterXC 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)