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

= July 26 =

Please help me to publish my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdullah_Baqui
Hello, I am trying to publish an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdullah_Baqui and have tried several times (6 times so far) with editing and uploading my article following suggested editing. I changed references, citation, content and the presentation of the subject. But still my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abdullah_Baqui)was not published and received similar comments from editor. I am a bit confused/puzzled with the sense what I should do more..... Is there anyway that I can receive some help to get my article publishable? I would be appreciating any sort of relevant help from anyone in this regard. Rashed.Shah 04:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Rashed Shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashed.shah (talk • contribs)


 * I'm a little puzzled by the decline reason, too, and I've asked the reviewer to explain her concerns. There are a few issues, though: Firstly, Baqui's research papers are primary sources; we shouldn't use those but rather secondary sources where someone else discusses Baqui's work. Secondly, parts of the article are, for all I can tell, currently not supported by any references at all, or they do not show the source on which they are based. For example, I couldn't find the dates of his Masters degree or his PhD in any of the sources. The statement that Baqui's discoveries have "resulted in influencing policy decisions" and the examples should be attributed to BSS which says so; I doubt the WHO and UNICEF homepages even mention Baqui (ie those external links are irrelevant and should be removed). On the other hand, the Gulf Times and the BSS piece are supposed to support a statement about the Dory Storms Child Survival Recognition Award, yet neither mentions that award. In fact, the Gulf Times article is a duplicate of the Financial Express article; since the latter was published a few days earlier, we should probably keep that one and get rid of the Gulf Times article as redundant.
 * In summary, while there's some editing to be done, the draft basically looks good to me, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be published after some fixes. Maybe I missed some issues the reviewer saw; I hope she can clarify the situation. Huon (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vinay Tripathi Photography
Actually I am facing a trouble while creating Mr. Vinay Tripathi's Photography wiki page. He is among one of the fledging photographers. He came to limelight when people across the globe started acknowledging his work through facebook. Through facebook only many people connected with him. Many photography fans across the globe have liked his page and they are talking about his photography. A famous writer came to Vinay tripathi for the portfolio shoot. I have given the reference of his website also. But my article got rejected because i was informed that facebook is not a reliable source. So please let me know what is the alternative source of making his wikipedia???????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbitiousSumi (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. To get an idea of what sources might be acceptable, click here for a list. Newspaper or magazine articles that review the work substantially may be acceptable. If, however, you can't find anything suitable, that may indicate that a Wikipedia article is not appropriate. Sorry. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cinemas Palme d&
This is a catch 22 I've got going on here. I write an article on a notable independent theater and provide a few independent sources to verify notability. The submission is rejected because still not notable enough. So I pull out several more independent sources to prove notability, and then the submission is rejected because I've apparently provided too much information. This theater is much more notable than similar theaters which have live articles, such as Sundance Kabuki. More so than many of the theaters listed in the same category,. AndrewK760 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think my take on it is that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of content relating to the lawsuit. While it's not uncommon for pages on very notable organisations to have "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections, you need to tread very carefully if it's the bulk of an article. Also, each article needs to be judged on its own merits, and mentioning other articles doesn't necessarily mean they're correct either. Try finding some references that talk about the theater in a positive light, rather than just the lawsuit, and see if that helps. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, change the title to Cinemas Palme d'Or Lawsuit.  :- ) Don  19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)