Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 February 26

= February 26 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agha Syed Ali Sharf ul din Moosvi
I have met Agha Syed ali Sharf ul Din Moosvi personally. He is a very great man. He has worked a lot on research on Islamic history.

in 1980's he was very famous scholar but when he started to write the books and spoke truth about Islam, All his Friends and Whole Shia Muslims became his enemy....

and today he is living as a poor.... Aajizislami (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just declined your article. This website is the English Language Wikipedia, and unfortunately, we can't accept submissions in other languages.  Please feel free to visit the Main Wikipedia page and pick a more appropriate language.  ~  Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian stacey
Could you please confirm whether The Age newspaper is not a reliable independent source?

The Age is Melbourne's major broadsheet newspaper of record, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age

As for the notability of Brian Stacey, is it insufficient that he was Australia's foremost orchestral conductor at the time of his death? Se the comments of Andrew Lloyd Webber and others as quoted in The Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neapolitankids (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Age does meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source and it is independent. The issue with the submission is notability; which must be evidenced, through coverage (of the subject at hand) in multiple reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. The submission requires some more coverage in a source that meets those requirements and is not The Age. Pol430 talk to me 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was the one who reviewed that page and made comments to the nature of why I declined it. Obituaries tend to reflect a person in the most positive of lights, especially in cases of tragedy. What I was specifically looking for was sources to his importance prior to the accident; something which states his notability before his death. The second source was the response to the premier which he was going to conduct if not for said accident. To me he meets notability; but all I was looking for was sources of his role as a conductor and other articles about him before his death. Just do those and I will accept it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Davison Budhoo
The reviewer said that the page isn't supported by adequately independent and reliable sources. But I cite Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, which talks extensively about Davison Budhoo and his resignation letter. That book itself has a full wiki page and was a best seller. Granted, the book could be a complete fake. But I included a journal article that had a picture and interview with the economist (Mr. Budhoo) himself. I also included his full length resignation letter.

Should I get his DNA and send to Wiki? I thought it was ludicrous that he wasn't on Wiki to begin with, as his resignation letter in 1988 was a huge event that was reported by many media outlets at the time. I now went to London School of Economics web page and found his article *and* his thesis from 1973. But I didn't put those on the page because I thought it is overkill. I didn't even write in the article that he has a degree from LSE (even though all other sites report that), because it was unclear what the degree exactly was. I also made it clear to summarize his points from the letter as "allegations" and not as true facts. I've been a researcher for over a decade and write scientific and peer-reviewed articles all the time. Why did this review not pass? IMHO it's ridiculous and a waste of everyones time, especially when considering the quality of some of the wiki articles out there.

Alighodsi (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If his resignation letter was covered by news sources like you say, then encourage you to add those and resubmit. If you can provide a couple, I can't see why it would/should be declined again. I'm sorry that you feel like you do, but generally we won't accept a BLP (biography of a living person) without a pretty good amount of sources. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Those sources were already in the article from the beginning. Could the problem be that two of them were listed as External Links rather than References? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.25.42 (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the one who declined submission. Your first link was the article which is copyrighted by Budhoo himself and the text cited 'All rights reserved' yet it is an 'Open article to the world'. It is perfectly fine. That aside it is the article in question and it works. The second set off my browser's security warning and that is bad so I never viewed the article in question because of the risks. This should be dealt with first. The third is not a valid source. The claims you make in the talk page, if true, should be in the sources and then it will be approved. I simply will not allow something that flags me with warnings, direct copyrighted post to material and a non-notable webpage pass review. A lot of articles on Wiki need updating and work, sources and citing. If they don't make standards that is what Articles for Deletion deals with. Please don't take it too hard, if the subject is notable just source it as such. Find the sources and the notability together is all I was trying to point out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The second source doesn't even have the full text and cuts off after the 2nd page and while it is a source even if viewed in full it is a single interview and not a critical response or backed by other articles. Notability and sources often go together. This has just one source which by itself still gets flagged for famous for a singular event. More on his career and role would be fine; just hate to base a biography of a person which doesn't even contain information of his birth/death or anything about his past for someone of even modest notoriety.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something here, or is the subject's only claim to notability the fact that he resigned from his job? If so, despite significant coverage in reliable sources the submission would still fall foul of WP:BLP1E at an AFD discussion. Pol430 talk to me 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

John Robilette
Hiya,

I'm working on behalf of John Robilette who has well over 50 references if you Google his name (there's 1 and only). His contemporaries are Eric Himy and Byron Janis. We presently have 6 citations on the entry including a .gov, a .edu, a public broadcasting website showing he's on the radio playlist, a Barnes & Noble listing on his CD. He was so upset by being denied he has emailed me 30 citations. Can someone please respond?

His link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Robilette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgwhitfield347 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably your article was declined for the wrong reason, because you have actually listed sources in your article. However, in my view there are still problems. Only three of the inline citations verify something to do with Robilette and they seem to be very incidental. We need to be convinced that Robilette meets Wikipedia's general notability criteria, in other words that he has been written about in-depth (or alternatively at least one of his creative works has been reviewed in multiple publications). It doesn't seem convincing to me at the moment. 50 brief mentions on Google won't count for anything, but a small number of in-depth news articles about him count for a lot. Sionk (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the decline reason for 'references' and for 'notability' are often used interchangeably. A subject can not be shown to be notable without significant coverage in multiple, reliable, published sources, that are independent of the subject. Pol430 talk to me 23:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)