Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 March 24

= March 24 =

Escalation of the rejection of Miya Shay article
I don't understand why my article on Miya Shay was rejected. She is a prominent broadcast journalist in Houston, Texas.

I cited numerous independent sources that should have been adequate to prove that she is the subject of much interest and celebrity in the mega City of Houston. If I submitted ten such sources, are 20 required, 100?

I also illustrated examples of her journalistic work. If the complaint is that the references are to YouTube video clips, then it should be remembered that Miya Shay is, after all, a broadcast journalist. What better objective evidence could there be than actual video clips of the work of a broadcast journalist?

My primary source was a video clip that she assembled of her work. All of the clips that were merged into this assembled work were clips actually broadcast on Houston's channel 13. The clip referenced in the footnote documented the scope of her career as asserted in the paragraph.

Are you saying that you will only accept video clips posted on the TV station's own website? Is that what you mean by independent? Is the evidence of actual video clips not adequate unless posted on the site of the TV station itself? If I go to the station archives and find the identical video material on a station site, will that satisfy you? Or, have you already decided that no video clip, no matter where posted, will satisfy you?

Why do you make a rejection vaguely stating either no independent sources and/or not notable? Why can't you say which one? Is the article rejected on lack of notability OR on lack of independent sources OR both. Pick one of the options.

Since the sources are clearly independent of Miya Shay, then is there a subjective test that you aren't owning? Are there different levels of independent? How reliable must a source be to merely prove up photographs and videos? Why make the grounds of rejection vague?

As for the determination of notability, do you have any objective standards for this; or is it just a subjective, gut feeling? If one's face must appear on TV, or on the front pages of a newspaper, is there an exception excluding journalists?

If you claim that any big city TV reporter/anchor is only of regional interest and deny that such a person can ever be considered notable, then say that.

I claim that pictures and video are by their very nature reliable, independent sources. What is your grounds for denying this? If video documentation of career events is never adequate, then say so.

What if I edit an existing page with a quote of the subject public figure which is documented by reference only to a video clip? Will that be rejected as well? If so, what if there is no other evidence of the quote except the video? Is the quote then disallowed forever, as if it never happened? If not, what is the difference between such case and documenting the scope of a person's career as reflected in a video montage?

WallopinWill (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll attempt to answer your various questions as best I can. With regards to notability, yes we do have a standard to work from; in fact, we have several. The primary guidelines can be found at Notability (with links to others). Having looked over this submission, I can see the primary issue is the lack of evidence of notability. Although there are a number of sources listed, their quality, and the coverage they give of Shay, is inconsistent. Many of the sources simply link to sites that feature a few photos of Shay, others are blogs (which are never considered reliable sources on Wikipedia) and one is link to another Wikipedia article (which should not be used as reliable sources due to the fact Wikipedia can be edited by anyone). Some sources are social media (Facebook), which is not considered a reliable source. References to the networks' website are fine for fact checking, but do not help to establish notability (because they are not independent). YouTube can sometimes be used as a reliable source but not always. The photos do not assist with establishing notability because they say nothing verifiable about her life and work, they therefore do not lend significant coverage nor do they discuss in detail which are the key phases when it come to establishing notability.


 * The number of sources cited is irrelevant if they are not reliable sources. You wrote:


 * The answer to point one and two, is that the decline reasons you have been reading are templates: they are a pre-formatted response, designed to cover a broad range of eventualities. It is possible to leave a custom decline reason, but this is not always done due to time constraints. The AfC process is frequently backlogged and we receive anything from 100 to 500 submissions per 24hrs. In answer to point three: notability must be evidenced through significant coverage, in independent, reliable sources. Therefore the principle of notability and the requirement for better referencing, are inextricably linked. In answer to your final point, concerning editing an existing page: Yes, it may be quite acceptable to edit info into an existing page and cite it to a video; however, the notability of that topic must already be established. You seem to be confusing notability with verifiability. We have a page, which can be found at WP:VRS, which should help explain the issue of notability and how it links to verifiability. Pol430  talk to me 09:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Friends of UNFPA
Can you please help me with referencing. Is the problem that our new name- Friends of UNFPA is not public yet? The domain name for our url (friendsofunfpa.org) redirects to our existing page americansforunfpa.org, is that sufficient evidence?

Is it ok to cite back to our website-- is that considered a valid source? I have included online links/references to all of Valerie's past employers, where it is indicated online that she held that title and responsibility. I am happy to make any edits It seems that my organizational page friends of unfpa has been accepted. Please advise on how I can improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthDignity (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have several minor problems with your article which are easily fixed. The major problem with you article is that every reference is to Friends of UNFPA or UNFPA.  What we need are independent references/sources from newspapers, magazines, other reliable media sources that talk about "your" organization, not UNFPA.  Find some of those and provide citations to the sources/articles, then we will be more likely to approve your article.  I will touch up your article a little and show how a citation is done.   If you have any other questions, just post them back here.    :- ) DCS  18:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I got carried away and rewrote quite a bit, but all your citations establish facts, not notability. Good Luck.   :- ) DCS  18:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Strathclyde Park Rowing Club
I am trying to bring this article up to standard. It would be helpfull if a reviewer could give me specifics on where citations or references are required. Tmhew12t (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to focus on the "competitive successes" section. Right you the sources there are two search results (why not use the actual articles?), one blank page, and one non-english site that I can't read. If you can source your statement about the medals they have picked up, I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crinkle crankle walls
I'm not entirely sure why this article was rejected. The reviewer seems to have fixed the problem with links and left no other comment or reason for rejection.

This is only a small and unimportant entry, so no big deal. The reason for writing it was that a) it doesn't exist on Wiki and b) there are references to crinkle crankle walls and serpentine walls in various other articles. I was also anxious to correct the impression that a US founding father invented them. Walking past a crinkle crankle wall in Lymington a couple of weeks ago I was intrigued by the design and found much contradicting info on the net. I've tried to summarize and straighten it all out for other Wiki users.

I also have a photo, but was defeated by Wiki's labyrinthine uploading methods.

I've read all your editing rules and having been a writer and journalist most of my career am very familiar with style rules, and indeed applaud the need for them. But I don't seem to have broken any of these rules. Perhaps one gets used to Wiki's coding, but so far I seems to have run afoul of your coding cops. To a 70 year old none of this is as obvious as it may seem to younger writers.

Now what's this about signing my post with four tildes?

Nigel Napier-Andrews (you can find me on Wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.133.183 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand some of your frustration, it takes some faith and getting used to, I'm not much younger than you, but have been in the computer business all my life. The cite numbers in your article are actually links, even though they get the job done, it does not provide the documentation of a footnote.  The wiki will do this all automatically and can be done using the CITE tab in the edit menu.  Insert the information at the point in the article where required, click done, and the software does the rest.  Information is also at WP:CITE.  Your article look okay otherwise, with the exception of notes 5 and 6, Wikipedia can not be used as a reverence. You can take a crack at fixing up the citations, or I can fix it up for you later on today sometime and approve the article.
 * As to the four tildes, when editing, if you insert ~, the computer will automatically enter your signature and time and date at that point when you save the page. I will enter my for tildes here.>  :- ) DCS  19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BankTree Personal Finance Software
The submitted articleWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BankTree Personal Finance Software has not been included, please advice which sections need to be revised. Does seem simmilar to other articles in the same vain. 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleb-donuts (talk • contribs)
 * The main problem, as I see it, is that your references aren't clear enough. You have sources like "BankTree web site" and "Which Magazine?", but that website is huge and I wouldn't go hunting through every issue of the magazine to try to find the source you have. Please expand your sources (give URL's for the websites, issue and article title/author for the magazine) and resubmit.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)