Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 December 13

= December 13 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Region Environmental Alliance
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Region Environmental Alliance was rejected due to references. As this is a community group, the websites listed are basically all the information on the group. Would presenting the references differently make it more acceptable? I feel there has to be a number of other Wikipedia pages that have equally reliable sources.

Thank you for any advice

Dragongal (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think a different presentation would help. The majority of the sources are primary sources such as the website of the York Region Environmental Alliance itself or the website of the Moraine Heroes award on the award. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent sources such as newspaper coverage. The YorkRegion news pieces are reliable and independent, but most of those don't say what they're cited for. For example, the "Helping reduce footprint" source is cited to confirm that the Our Ecological Footprint paper shows "how to measure human impact on the natural environment". It doesn't say so. It mentions neither the paper nor measurements of human impact on the environment. In fact it hardly mentions the YREA at all. The others aren't much better. In summary, I don't think the current sources provide the kind of significant coverage we require to show YREA's notability, and we cannot base a well-sourced article on them. Other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Articles for creation/Psychological and Sociological Issues Affecting Expeditionary Space Missions
I have a digital image to insert in this article. How do I do this?Kanasnick (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Nick Kanas
 * Please look at my response to the article on Frank Richardson further up the page, where I have given instructions and advice -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas
I need help with linking resources to this article. I tried to find reliable resource and added these to the article but it is still not approved. I need help to get this article running as soon as possible!MrsChrissie (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there's not much that can be done without better sources - the draft currently has a bunch of primary sources such as press releases and a few reliable sources that hardly mention Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Texas at all. Apparently the Central Texas branch of Big Brothers Big Sisters simply isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It may be better to use some of the reliable sources, especially the kxan.com article,, and improve the main Big Brothers Big Sisters of America articles whose current sources aren't quite what they're supposed to be either. Huon (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Motion Picture Corporation
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Motion Picture Corporation

Hi, I don't know why it says on the top that my article has not been submitted but at the bottom it says it has?

Noreendc (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The bottom message is correct, the one at the top is a relic that should soon be cleaned up by a bot. The draft is correctly submitted for review.
 * However, I don't think the sources are sufficient. IMDb is not as reliable as we'd like, and it probably doesn't cover the United States Motion Picture Corporation in any appreciable detail anyway. blackdiamondcomedies.com looks like a blog to me, and while the author may be an expert on the field as our article claims, that's not readily apparent, and there's no indication whether or to what extent the individual articles hosted there were subject to editorial oversight. The National Film Preservation Foundation website doesn't even mention the USMPC; neither does the source for Her Fractured Voice. That leaves us with the Times-Leader, indeed a reliable source that provides some information o the studio (most of which didn't make its way into the draft), but on its own it may be too little to establish the studio's notability. Huon (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out GoogleBooks as well; there are some scattered mentions of the studio, which might be enough to establish basic WP:Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I do believe the company has sufficient notability, as it made and released nationally/internationally a large number of films in the early silent film era. There are a numerous primary sources from 1916-1919 for the United States Motion Picture Corp. I am not sure how to cite copyright application, but Library of Congress does hold a number of those. The Moving Picture News documents the company's films in almost every issue between 1916-1919, and is probably the best source in advertisements, articles, and film release listings. I will add some of those citations. And there are some secondary ones, besides the blog. And in fact, the National Film Preservation Foundation website *does* mention the company at least three times where they list the "His Neglected Wife" film recovered from New Zealand. I agree IMDB is quite unreliable, which is why I am writing this entry in Wikipedia, but I will also cite the films from other sources. Thank you again, and I hope to improve the citations in the next few days.Noreendc (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)