Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 25

= May 25 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Michael
Articles are from independent sources. What is still missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.126.142 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not significant coverage. Most of the sources only mention Michael in passing, one does not mention him at all. Maybe his some of his companies are notable, but unless someone has written about Michael in more detail, he apparently is not. Huon (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

what is meaning of hulsha?
what is meaning of hulsha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.95.141 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try  for an article related to the topic you want to know more about.  I hope this helps. As an aside, specifying the language would make answering the question much easier. Huon (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor Jonathan Waxman
Hi there. I'm struggling to get this article accepted, I think because of lack of reliable sources. I hope that the published medical research, and the Prostate Cancer Charity's annual report, are both acceptable sources? I may be mistaken but I believe the problem is with the other background info about Professor Waxman. That info all comes directly from him (I'm writing this article with his permission) and I've tried to verify some of it by linking to various websites that corroborate it. But some of it, eg where he was born, is unverifiable. So do I need to remove these little background bits? Thank you. Francesca w (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All the sources are primary sources: Organizations Waxman is affiliated with, or papers he has written himself. What we need to establish his notability is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that is, independent sources writing about Waxman or discussing his work. Maybe there are news articles discussing his charity work or scholarly articles (written by others!) elaborating on Prof. Waxman's research? As holder of a named professorship he likely is notable, but we still need secondary sources to write an article about him. Huon (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added some secondary sources which are hopefully adequate, and resubmitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca w (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ but needs a bit of a copy edit. Pol430 talk to me 22:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Inviting other colleagues to help prepare this page for review
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISPS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ISPS#The_International_Society_for_Psychological_and_Social_pproaches_to_Psychosis

How can i link to the page to inform others in the society I have begun a draft page and they should contribute?

many thanks Phil 11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbenjamin (talk • contribs)


 * You know the URL; giving that to other society members should help. On Wikipedia, links to other Wikipedia pages are produced by double square brackets: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISPS gives Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISPS. However, you should not link to the draft from articles before it has been accepted. Furthermore, writing about a society of which you are a member might be a conflict of interest.
 * As an aside, you need significant coverage in reliable secondary soures to establish the society's notability. Such sources probably exist (I found a few news articles in connection with their name change), but you currently use only primary sources. Huon (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PublicStuff
Hello, can you tell me why my article still isn't getting approved? I have several external sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FannanaLIZ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While you do have some reliable sources, much of the article is based on primary sources, including, for example, the claim that cities can save $360,000. Such information would require a secondary source, one independent of the subject of the article. Huon (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in Pakistan
I received following message from the reviewer:

"Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Multinational corporation instead."

This is to clarify that my article is not about Multinational Corporations in general but it particularly focuses on "Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in Pakistan". Kindly review my submission again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUltimateWiki (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The draft's first two paragraphs seem to be about multinational corporations in general, not just about a Pakistani angle. The rest seems like original research; It has no reliable secondary sources, some claims seem highly dubious (A company is not considered multinational in Pakistan if it has infrastructure of less than 60,000 sq ft? Why should the size of the company's infrastructure be relevant to whether or not it is considered multinational?), and there doesn't seem much Pakistan-specific to be said about multinational corporations. Excepting the claim I doubt, the remainder can be summed up as: "There are multinational corporations active in Pakistan; some are older than others; they operate in many different sectors; and Pakistan does not treat them differently than non-multinational corporations." I doubt we need a separate article for that. Huon (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the concerns mentioned by Huon which I agree with, the text in the article seems to be copied from another website (couldn't add the link as it is blacklisted here). -- S M S  Talk 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rolf Dieter Schmid
I would like some help with the page i am working on, i am unsure of what i need to do at this point to correct the page. I need some one to explain it to me as if i am a 5yr old, sorry i just don't seem to get it.Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rolf Dieter Schmid Mho5 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mho5, you have a very good start for your article, well done! However, there are a few issues with it that will need to be addressed before it will pass review. First off, as a reviewer noted, there are a few places where it feels like you are advertizing Dr. Schmid, particularly in the Scientific work section. Remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus must retain a neutral tone. In addition, you don't use inline citations in your article, which makes it very difficult to tell what information is validated or not (particularly for the typical reader who doesn't want to scour the sources to verify information on their own. Also, the source you use is an interview (very close to primary) and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Try to find more sources - particularly news articles or biogrophies (NOT Autobiographies) to diversify and validate your information. Secondary sources are needed to show that Dr. Schmid is a notable person. Finally, the links you have to other wikipedia articles are formatted incorrectly (this is a very minor issue). If I had time right now I would fix that for you but I will do so when I have more time on my hands. All in all, there's work to be done but it's a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Bradshaw (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silicon Valley
Hello,

I am writing about the Silicon Beach article Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/ Silicon Valley I was submitting to the site. It was denied, and the reasons stated was because the article already exists, but I can't seem to find it. If you could point me in the right direction, or help clarify why my article was not approved, that would be awesome.

On top of that, I am not sure why it was being submitted to the Silicon Valley portion of Wikipedia. That was something done automatically, or possible even by accident on my end.

Thanks again

Justchav (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the problem was indeed that your draft was accidentally named "Silicon Valley" instead of "Silicon Beach" (and to my knowledge there's no automatism that chooses draft names). But your draft also needs better references. Those you currently have do not actually discuss Silicon Beach in detail, and major parts of your draft are entirely unreferenced. Since the term was only coined in 2011, it is a neologism that simply may not be notable yet. Huon (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)