Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 12

= April 12 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warwick Evans
Thank you. However, the article about Warwick Evans was submitted with ten references to articles about him including from the UK Financial Times and UK 'Design' (The UK Design Council). Do these not count? Jhoward2003 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Jhoward2003 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Help, please.

My first Wiki contribution is about a Cambridge Science Park industrial designer, Warwick Evans. Although the contribution is detailed and has numerous references (from press articles, etc) it has been rejected twice on grounds of 'not notable' and asking to re-submit with 'verifable' sources. Can you please give some help gere:

1. What counts as 'verifiable'?

2. How is 'not notable' decided?

Thank you.

Jhoward2003 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When we say 'verifiable', we say that it must be provable. You can't just say something with no way to back it up - that's why we use sources for everything. So, the content must be verifiable. Now, to determine notability we look at the verified facts you have set forth. (Remember, they must be checkable. If you say that John Smith won a Nobel Prize he certainly sounds notable, but if you can't back it up then we don't know if it's true.) Now, the easiest way to explain notability is to show you this link. It's short, but lays the groundwork very well. If you write about a person, you must show that others have written about him. As a general rule, if you have two or three reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail, then he is notable. For example, if he is a writer then we would look for book reviews or author profiles. Did this help? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the article about Warwick Evans was submitted with ten references to articles about him including from the UK Financial Times and UK 'Design' (The UK Design Council). Do these not count? Jhoward2003 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dogeared
Hello, I have been trying to post this article Dogeared for about a month. I have made the necessary changes as requested by the first few publishers that edited the article. After the first few edits I have added reputable sources such as USA today, the Los Angeles Times, and other large publication newspapers. I am confused why the article is still not acceptable and The most recent editor will not respond as to why he did not accept nor will he give any more guidance as to why the article did not meet the standards of wikipedia. The sources show the notability of the company as each reference has relevant mention of the company. Any help would be awesome. Thank you so much for your time. Mtheisner (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)mtheisner
 * I'm planning on accepting this, but Dogeared needs to be unprotected first. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're too good Nolelover! I just spend about 5 mins writing that I would ask RHaworth if he was willing to unprotect, only to see you have beaten me to it... ;) Pol430 talk to me 18:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, sorry for the wasted effort ;) Of course, a second on my proposal at his talk would be appreciated, I'm sure... Nolelover <b style="color:Gold;">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold;">Contribs</b> 18:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there something more that I have to do to get this accepted or make it "unprotected"? Thanks again for your comments and help! Mtheisner (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)mtheisner
 * Not at the moment, just bear with us. We are trying to get the protection lifted. May take 24hrs or so... <b style="color:#00008B;">Pol430</b> talk to me 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much! I really appreciate your help Mtheisner (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)mtheisner
 * ✅ :) <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold;">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold;">Contribs</b> 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garrett Forbes
Helllo, I am an inquiring on the Wikipedia for Garrett Forbes. He is a notable Actor and model with many works that are known in the fashion and entertainment industry. I can confirm multiple sources that are notable for approval. I look forward to hearing from you. HollywoodLandPublicRelations (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC) HOLLYWOODLAND Public Relations
 * You need to establish notability by third-party, verifiable, reliable sources.  The Wikipedia can not be a source.  Facebook, Twitter, IMDB, and any name with the word Blog in it is probably not reliable.  Also, because this is living person, any material that may be contentious must have a inline citation.   Good luck.   <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) DCS  19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked for having an institutional name. Secretlondon (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/&
what is wrong with this?Hubeman (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia can not be used as a source. Without that, you only have one source.  Normally 2 or 3 are required.   <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) DCS  19:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Society of Esseans International
The article is about an organization of which I am the chairman of the board (as stated in the article). I do not understand why I should submit "sources". Sources of what? About what? The article should be its own source. The only relevant "source" is our organizational web site. Anthony Dias Souza Chairman of the Board Society of Esseans International Souzaad (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to submit sources because that's how Wikipedia works. Everything here must be verifiable, and the only way we can verify what you say is if you source it. Furthermore, those sources are how we determine "notability". If multiple reliable, independent sources have written about the subject, it's notable by our standards. Last thing - everything on Wikipedia is free so that means you can't submit copyright material. Your submission apparently consisted of a copy of your history page, and so is what we call a copyright violation. I apologize if this seems incredibly complicated, but it's all necessary to keep Wikipedia running. Please write the submission in your own words, with sources, and resubmit. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold;">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold;">Contribs</b> 12:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Creepy Treehouse
What should I do in order to get this article approved and published. It is entirely factual and not a hoax. The article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Creepy Treehouse.

Ebarry5 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Ebarry5
 * You are correct that it is factual, but I afraid it still would not be right for Wikipedia. We are not a dictionary, so we don't publish neologisms. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold;">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold;">Contribs</b> 11:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about the application of the Neology guideline to this article. The guidelines state, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Several of the sources for this term are definitely aimed at explaining the concept, not merely using them. I would point to When Professors Create Social Networks for Classes, Some Students See a ‘Creepy Treehouse’, The Creepy Treehouse Problem, and To Friend or Not to Friend: Academic Interaction on Facebook. While it's arguable that "creepy treehouse" is merely a neologism, I believe all of these sources point to it also being a phenomenon that bares understanding for those working with new media in educational settings. Is this a fair "reading" of the Wikipedia guidelines, and is there another way to approach getting this approved? --Mburtis (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)