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

= March 13 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta adrenergic receptor kinase carboxyl-terminus
Hi there,

Thank you for reviewing the article I am trying to create! Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta adrenergic receptor kinase carboxyl-terminus I am slightly confused as to why the use of peer-reviewed primary articles is not sufficient to create this page since primary sources are just as, if not more reliable than secondary sources for novel information. There are many other pages currently on Wikipedia that talk about treatments (such as Mydicar and Esmolol) that draw their information from solely primary sources. The main purpose of this article is to outline a potential treatment of heart failure that is currently being studied.

Any further feedback would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Tyan4180 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article and sources look plenty sourced to me. Accepted. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 03:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mhddfs
Is Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Novell (OpenSuse) not "reliable and independent." ?

What are the difference between this arcticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mhddfs ?

Havsorli (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Havsorli


 * The distributions, themselves, are citeable as sources only as evidence that yes, those distributions include the filesystem in question. That is not evidence of notability, which is what the reviewer was asking you to provide.  In reference to establishing notability, "reliable and independent sources" generally refers to the fact that if the subject in question is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then other people should be talking about that subject.  Examples might include an in-depth review by a major tech magazine or possibly a prominent tech blog, or a news article from a reputable news agency discussing how popular this file system is, or so forth.


 * The aufs article at least includes one source explaining why that particular distribution is using aufs as opposed to some other filesystem (the Knoppix release note). However, to be quite honest with you, the evidence on that article does not clearly indicate notability, and if someone were to nominate it for deletion, it might be axed.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  If that particular article were brought through AfC today, we would decline it just like your submission was declined. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, neither article meets notability, but the aufs article is just a tiny little bit barely less closer to not meeting it. Does that make sense?  Anyone else?   :- ) DCS  18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The aufs article went through an AfD discussion and the result was 'keep', apparently, though the decision actually says 'no concensus for deletion' which sounds more like ...erm ...no consensus. Sionk (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Summing up (I think), if you can find a reliable independent source in a software magazine or something that says Mhddfs will save the world or at least your butt, then you probably have an article.  :- ) DCS 19:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klüber Lubrication
Dear Wikis,

I'm not sure if I've managed to actually submit the above article for review? If I go to "my contributions", I still find the note: "Article not currently submitted for review." I've tried to follow all instructions, not sure what I'm doing wrong, sorry... Mokeller (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Cheers B  music  ian  13:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry Cryer
Hi There,

As far as i can tell, my article written Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Terry Cryer - an important artistic figure in the world of photography - has been rejected because of my sources. But I am unclear as to why. I believe the sources to be both independent and trustworthy.

I would appreciate your help.

Best wishes,

Owen

--Oliseh87 (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ Some of your citations are not good, e.g., Muddy Waters's Cabin, but generally things check out, as far as I can tell. I think you have an article. Thanks.  :- ) DCS 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HDMS Dannebrog
This is a shipindex, it could be completely filled with redlinks and be perfectly fine in existing. There are many shipindices that are completely redlinks. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This happens. Perhaps the articles existed but were deleted because they were not good enough, or someone wants to cover all the options, and sometimes the red links are motivation for someone to write a good article.    :- ) DCS  19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They are created as pages of mostly redlinks, I've seen it happen in discussions at WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST. 70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that disambiguation pages are supposed to identify more than two pages, and right now there's only two actual articles who have articles. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikified
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Ray's Splash Planet The Ray's Splash Planet article has been assessed as C Class and I was curious how the article could be specifically improved or "wikified", as suggested. There appears to be no specific reason cited for this designation. Thanks! DOOLEYCE (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that is a lucky "C". Please start here: WP:ASSESS.  Come back if you have any more questions.    :- ) DCS  20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Second opinions
Hi, folks. I am wondering if I can get some independent opinions about this AfC submission I have recently reviewed. The author has very kindly disagreed with me on a couple of points. See this section of my talk page for his / her thoughts. I'd like to make sure we get things right. NTox · talk 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not notable- there are no verifiable, reliable sources that are independent that discuss him. Even if the information is true, he does not fulfill notability criteria for people. Per WP:BLP, all material must be well sourced. See WP:SOURCES. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trendyasdabbers
Help! I provided 11 references for my article and at least 8 of them are easily checked from legitimate and well established web sites. Why does the reviewer claim I have NO REFERENCES?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Trendyasdabbers

Benaynay (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * References, to show notability, must be independent, significant coverage, verifiable, and reliable. Your references-


 * 1) Self published.
 * 2) Self published.
 * 3) Self published.
 * 4) This reference is just a website. Where can you find the material supporting its cited text?
 * 5) This is a forum. Reliable source? No.
 * 6) Repost of video. Not notability.
 * 7) Same.
 * 8) Same.
 * 9) Same.
 * 10) Same.
 * 11) Self published.

Just does not add up to notability. A412 (Talk &bull; C) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)