Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 March 27

= March 27 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toucan cove
Can someone tell me whats wrong with this admission???? Is these a different language I need to learn or need to speak to make this article more _ neutral_?

Can someone then rewrite this submission or and take the other submitted articles down that others seem to get posted that are almost verbatim to my article??

Thanks for your help...

Kevin V. Ray
 * Even if you rewrote for a month, there are no reliable sources as to notability, only one lists the company at all, and as a partner. I could do better on the street corner this Friday, in Albuquerque.    :- ) DCS  05:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As  :- ) DCS was alluding---albeit arguably a bit too unkindly, is that the notability of the subject can't yet be established, because there are insufficient sources.  In a way, the Wikipedia sourcing protocol is kind of like speaking another language, but here is a translation guide Identifying_reliable_sources.  Please read through this, so you can identify what sources will better support the subject of your article.  Basically the sources need to be from multiple 1) independent sources (Trademarked and LinkedIn aren't independent because the subject inputs that information themselves) 2) that are reliable.  Try to track down supporting articles that meet these reqs, and then you are encouraged to resubmit your contribution :D Dalisays (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Help me, My first go..
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Mullumbimby Giants

Why is my article not being accepted? Thank you for your time. Ethman94 Ethman94 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is accepted, and you already edited on it! See The_Mullumbimby_Giants  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

changing title of my article and the associated redirect
Greetings, How do I change the title of my article and associated redirect from Tom Herman (coach) to Tom Herman (American Football Coach)?Masegian (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Masegian, I went ahead and took care of both issues although I believe the article has been renamed Tom Herman (American Football) per naming conventions? Dalisays (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burger &
What would be my next step in getting this article posted and cross referenced with "List of piano brands"?

Brhebert (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The brand Burger and Jacobi are already listed in the article List_of_piano_brand_names. So you just need to get your article up to scratch and moved into the mainspace, and then we can simply add a link to the List_of_piano_brand_names article, linking it to the page you created. Hope this helps  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 09:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education
Hello Thanks for all your help so far but this is the 6th time I have submitted this article and each time it has been declined despite me having changed it to the best of my ability, and still it's not getting through. I have changed all the language so that it is strictly factual, I have included many references, and deleted a section on its history as it was deemed to be a violation of copyright. Please please PLEASE can you look at the article on ABET already on WP as it is a similar organisation and it is already included with very broadly the same type of copy, yet the ENAEE article keeps being declined. I truly believe that this is a notable not-for-profit organisation that has achieved much in the field of European engineering education, so would appreciate any help you can give me - can you PLEASE make it very specific as at this stage I just feel like giving up!! Thanks in advance for your time AISBL AISBL (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, first let me say that I'm sorry that your experience here has been less then satisfactory. Although we do our best to help everyone to the best of our ability, there simply aren't enough Wikipedia editors and sometimes when we are fast, our 'help' doesn't help much at all. Now, about your submission. We have a very basic rule: all articles must be supported by multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject of the article in detail. You have plenty of sources, but I don't think that any of them are independent. Instead, you submission is mainly sourced to the network and the network's members. What you need to add are sources that show that the network has been discussed in other places, like news articles, magazines, books, etc. If you can add some of those, we can easily clean up the other stuff and accept your submission.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Nolelover but when I included independent sources (because they backed up what I said) I was then told I was violating copyright - because what I had written appeared elsewhere, entirely without me knowing. So here is my conundrum - I can't include stuff that appears elsewhere, as you tell me it's violating copyright ( i can't possibly cover all the things that have already been written about ENAEE, '0000s of article and I am going to duplicate something, by accident) and yet now again you are asking for independent sources, and it won't get in otherwise. What independent sources am I supposed to find that proves FEANI (as an example) is a member of ENAEE? What does that add to the reader? If they say they are on their site is that not enough? ENAEE's work has been referenced widely all over the world but a lot of the copy is very similar, as it is very consistent in what it does, and the same member organisations use the same sort of language to do their accreditations, hence me being accused of violating copyright. I cannot understand how the article on ABET can be approved with similar copy, and LESS references than I have, and yet mine is continually not approved. Also each editor says sth different to me, there is not consistency of what constitutes what, the last guy said if I deleted the History section it would be ok, and then you come along and say No!!! I'm not getting at you personally it's just that I have been trying since the beginning of march and it's now a month later and still I am no-where. I am totally at the end of my tether and my opinion of WP has been negatively affected as there seems to be no editorial consistency, and a LOT of latitude with regard to what can be included or not. I'm not getting at you personally, and I know you are volunteers, but equally I am writing this in my own spare time, and here I am 5 weeks in and am just nowhere. Thanks for your time - it is appreciated. AISBL (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zee Khana Khazana
We would like help in writing this article about one of India's premier food channels, Zee Khana Khazana Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zee Khana Khazana. It would be great if the shortcomings in the article are pointed out so as to meet the requirements for your approval. Sociosquare (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The main shortcoming is explicitly outlined in the 'decline' message, primarily that the article is written like an advert for Zee Khana Khazana. I could not explain it better than the message that is already there, to be quite honest. Phrases such as "rich programming mix", "shows that define and refine the culinary expertise that has become synonymous with Food" (copied from the company website), "pioneered the launch of genre defining channels", "comes with a pledge of exploring the world of food like never before", "is the way forward in the television space" are all in the first paragraph, are not neutral, factual, or encyclopedic. The list of programmes and programming also reads like a listing from a TV magazine. As the 'decline' message also says, anything likely to be challenged (i.e. making grand claims), or quotations must be cited to reliable, independent sources. In addition, to prove that the TV company is notable (as Wikipedia calls it), you'll need to show that the company has been widely reported in the news. Sionk (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Klarberg
With regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Klarberg, what steps do I need to take in order to show that this person is of sufficient notability for a Wikipedia page? This person is the newest owner of the New York Yankees, and is a pioneer in the celebrity management field for professional athletes and entertainers (including current clients Charlie Sheen, Justin Timberlake, Russell Simmons, and Hockey Hall-of-Famer Mark Messier).

Thank you. Rklarberg (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First, the New York Yankees is owned by Yankee Global Enterprises LLC, and has been since 1999. Second, to establish notability of Mr. Klarberg, coverage via independent secondary sources needs to be provided. As of now, none of the sources that have been provided give coverage of Mr. Klarbeg (possibly with the exception of one) but rather just provide mention. Some of the sources provide coverage of Mr. Klargberg's companies but not him directly. I am not the reviewer who rejected the article, but I would recommend establishing the notability of the subject by enlisting more articles that cover him. Dalisays (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Motionsoft Gym Management Software
Is there any way I could get a wiki administrator to edit my page. Ive done this about thirty times and I just can't figure out wtf i am doing wrong..Im beginning to dislike wikipedia!--Rbenamor (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is that the article reads like an advertisement. The big claim of importance, "The company was recently recognized as one of the fastest growing companies in America", is very misleading because being 800th on a list of fastest growing companies isn't sufficiently impressive (if it was in the top 10 then maybe). You need coverage beyond PRWeb, which isn't a reliable source due to it republishing press releases. What you need to do is demonstrate that the company deserves a wikipedia article by providing sources that are: Independent, which means they have absolutely no connection to the company; reliable, for example national/international news; and provide significant coverage, which means that the source must be entirely about the company. Good sources are national news articles about the company; PRweb is a bad source because it isn't independent or reliable. If you have a personal connection to the company you should definitely read the simple guide to conflicts of interest--Mrmatiko (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)