Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 November 29

= November 29 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stoda Cheers
(article removed) Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.48.19 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is for questions about submissions to Articles for Creation. Do you have a specific question? As it stands, your article is a set of text-based graphics and an insignificant list, so I do not think it is at all suitable for Wikipedia, I'm afraid. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Playdale Playgrounds
Hello,

I am wondering whether you could give me further guidance on my article creation: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Playdale Playgrounds and specifically why it has been rejected a couple of times?

The articles that I have used for references are legitimate and the information in the article is fact about the history of our company. I don't see any form of advertising in this and I would appreciate any further feedback that you could give me?

Kind regards,

Andrew Fullard Marketing Co-ordinator Playdale Playgrounds

(Rbeachplaydale (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC))


 * Firstly, you should avoid writing articles about yourself, and in particular about your company. It is hard to impossible to write about such subjects with a genuine neutral point of view, and frequently Wikipedia accounts that are known to be associated with companies and used to edit articles about them get blocked. I would strongly advise you to stop editing this article and get your username changed (Click here and follow the instructions if you wish to do this), otherwise you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia for much longer. Sorry.
 * Regarding the references used, the North West Evening Mail reference is a reliable source and does directly mention the company. The BBC News reference, however, is about businesses with Cumbria, and does not talk about your company in any significant depth. Since we require significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, I'm afraid I can't pass your article. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TJ Otzelberger
The page I am trying to create has not been reviewed yet. It has been 11 days. Is this normal?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TJ Otzelberger

Otzelberger (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is currently a severe backlog of nearly 1400 articles to review, so unfortunately reviews will currently take weeks rather than days. Sorry. As far your article is concerned, the Times-Republican source helps establish notability, but the other sources don't contain enough significant coverage of Otzelberger, so I would not pass the article in its current state. More importantly, you should avoid writing articles about yourself as it is nearly impossible to write with a neutral point of view - a core policy in Wikipedia. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History and Uses of Thalidomide
If I were to change the title of my article to The History of Thalidomide from the 1950's to the 1980's, and change my introduction a bit, would my article be okay for publication, I have reviewed the other article on thalidomide and it does give a brief history but it focuses more on treatments today, and I also discusses Canada. If I also hyper link their article when I give my history on the drug would that work to solve the problem?Ceciliaanne311 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History and Uses of Thalidomide
 * I still think you would be better off adding your sourced content (where it does not already exist) to the existing article on Thalidomide. Although I haven't done a complete side-by-side review of both articles, there doesn't seem to be much that isn't covered by the existing article, though as that is tagged as requiring attention, your sources may help improve it. For instance, the main article currently has a single sentence "Canada was the last country to stop the sales of the drug, in early 1962.", which you could expand. Of particular concern in your article is the "Conclusion" section, which looks like original research - on Wikipedia you can only paraphrase what the sources say and nothing more. I don't understand what you mean by "hyper link their article" - can you clarify what you mean? -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)