Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 21

= May 21 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sam Kwang Elementary
Hi, yeah, my school wants to me to make a wikipedia page for them because they're Korean. I have tried to send this in but for some reason I keep getting told that I haven't referenced it correctly. The website should be enough. It's an elementary school... Please, help me make them happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessecpence (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic of your submission does not appear to be notable. Articles need to be referenced adequately with reliable sources that are independent of the subject - this does not include the school's website, as it is affiliated with the subject. The article is also very short and provides insufficient context. → B  music  ian  03:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proximagen Group plc
Last time I was on the live help chat the feedback was that the page was fine but to add dates to references, but after re-submiting I still dont get approved. Any feedback someone can give to improve it please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Proximagen_Group_plc

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proximagen Group plc

Thank you

Itguyatwork (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've accepted this submission. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karol Berger
I don't understand why my review was not accepted. I do cite reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources you cite are all primary sources: Books written by Berger, his own university, the websites of the societies whose awards he has won. What would be required to establish notability are secondary sources, sources not affiliated with the subject. Was there independent news coverage of the awards? Has someone written a book about Berger, or discussing his views? I expect such sources should exist, but we'd have to add them to the article to clearly establish notability. Huon (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this helpful response. I have now added several secondary sources. Would it be possible to approve the article now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Extra sources are always nice, but I think in this case they weren't strictly necessary. Per WP:ACADEMIC, there doesn't have to be secondary sources directly about the academic; we can just use reliable sources to show their scholarly work has been highly influential. That Berger holds a named chair, is a member of a prestigious scholarly society (the Polish Academy of Sciences) and has been the recipient of several prestigious awards is evidence that his work has been highly influential and therefore shows notability. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify those facts. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 18:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Androzene Article
Hello, How long is an article normally under review for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androzene (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your submission has been reviewed now, but I'll answer anway: usually a few days at least, we have a very large backlog and a shortage of volunteers to review submissions. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 19:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coralhead
Wikipedia:talk:Articles for creation/Bioscience Resource Project

HI, I have been editing the draft above. I have added links to other wikipedia articles in the body of the article. Can you tell me if I have added too many? Are some types of links preferred or discouraged?

For example I have linked to terms like alternative media and public interest, which I think can use explanations.

I have linked to organizations like NPR.

I have linked to well known people who are in wikipedia like Michael Pollan.

Are those all useful links or have I gone overboard?

OR should I just wait until I submit the article for review and get feedback then?

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and trouble.

Frogtoed (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are written guidelines in the manual of style, but I think you have the knack of it: link where you think a reader might want more information on a related topic, or explanation of a specialised term; don't link unrelated topics or self-explanatory terms.
 * The AfC process is mainly about determining whether the topic is suitable for inclusion and the article conforms to our broadest standards. We don't get hung up on style issues like under- or over-linking. But you're welcome to seek feedback on that sort of thing while the article is still at AfC (either here or on the submission itself), or later (at the main help desk).
 * On another topic, the "See also" section conventionally contains links to other Wikipedia articles on related topics that aren't linked. Links to other websites should go in an "External links" section. Again, there's a manual of style section explaining in more detail. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 19:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Picturepark Digital Asset Management Software
Re: Articles for creation/Picturepark Digital Asset Management Software

This article was just declined with the references being cited, but I'm not sure what I could do to improve the references. This is the entirety of the public information that's available on the company. Further, the statements made in the article are not outlandish or promotional in nature, and all can be verified at the links provided.

This is my first time submitting an article to Wikipedia, so perhaps this is something simple that I've misunderstood.

Any suggestions you can offer would be appreciated.

Thank you!

David Diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirDiamond (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with your submission is not that the facts aren't cited (it meets the verifiability criteria, in Wikipedia jargon) or that the content is promotional in tone, it's the notability of the product itself. The basic rule of thumb for notability is that the topic of an article should be discussed in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It's confusing because we use references for different things – to verify facts and to show the topic is worthy of inclusion – and a reference might be fine for one purpose but unsuitable for the other. In this case, your references verify the information in the article, but because they're directly associated with its topic (the official website of the product and the company), they can't be used to show the topic is notable.
 * If, as you say, the official websites are all the publicly available information that exists, I'd suggest that neither the product or the company is notable. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 19:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gletcher
I received the message below regarding the creation of my article on Gletcher:

"The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

I would be happy to give references and cite sources for this article, but this article is about a brand new company, and there is no way to reference it. If there are any suggestions on what steps I can take to get this article put on Wikipedia considering the circumstances, I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

Thank you, Dinulya123Dinulya123 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the company is brand new and nobody have written about it, then it is not notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of every company and practically speaking, as a tertiary source, we can't write about something if we have no sources to cite. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I just realized that I made a mistake. It should say that Gletcher is a brand new product, and not a brand new company. I apologize for my error.

Therefore, since it is still brand new and original, there is no place to get references or cite it. The only reference I can offer is a link to this product's website.

So again, if someone can please advise me on what I can do next to get my article about the new product Gletcher on Wikipedia considering the circumstances surrounding it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you, Dinulya123Dinulya123 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a brand new prioduct without reliable secondary sources still means that it's probably not (yet) notable and that Wikipedia should not (yet) have an article on it. Wait until some independent reviews in reliable publications are available, then write an article based on those sources. Huon (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faulty Expressions
This page "Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (new section)" is too cryptic to understand. I know you understand it but the rest of us do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalsburg (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that. What exactly was unclear, and how could we improve it? Huon (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faulty Expressions
My submission was rejected with the following message...Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faulty Expressions .................... The reviewer left the following comment about this submission:

The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

....................

The reviewer seems to contradict himself, the message above says that my submission meets the standard but then it says to cite sources using footnotes, I am the source of the material, what next is there to do? My submission is based on the faults people make in Speech. Words as sounds coming from someones mouth cannot be reproduced on the printed page, only text can be written. The text in my submission is logic, accumulated over years of careful observation of people speaking on TV, Radio, and in Public. Example; the word "Burnt" is in the Dictionary, but is obsolete, as is the word "Whilst". You will not hear People speak; "Whilst I go to Market, fetch a Pale of Water" for the same reason, the Word, "Burnt" should not be used, unless you are writing in the style of 16th Century England.

Faulty Expressions are defined nowhere in Literature. A book referenced in my Submission contains a Chapter: "Glossary of Faulty Expressions" which decades ago, may have inspired me, but my Submission contains none of the content in that book. My Submission is original thought. Jsalsburg (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That note means that there's content which should have inline citations - it meets the minimum standard for material that requires inline citations. Your own observation unfortunately is not suitable as the basis for a Wikipedia article. We cannot accept original research; that's one of Wikipedia's core policies. Instead, article content must be based on reliable secondary sources, and inline citations are necessary to show which part is based on what source. Otherwise our readers would have an exceedingly hard time trying to verify the article's content. Huon (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)