Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 14

= October 14 =

Morrison School
I did not attend "MORRISON GLACE BAY HIGH SCHOOL". I did attend "MORRISON SCHOOL" in Antigonish. It no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.54.67 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to write an article about the school, please use the Article Wizard. We need significat coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish its notability. Huon (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LeRoy and Pictet
Dear Sir or Madam, I ask around review from this article. I come from Germany and have with good English hard. These articles is very important for the history of the Volga-German. Concordia University in Portland Oregon makes scientific studies about this subject, see link . This article is already accepted in Germany and is published. Only on English Wikipedia this article is not admitted. Please, around help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.30.222 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Um ehrlich zu sein, ist Dein Englisch so schlecht, dass der englische Entwurf stellenweise schlichtweg falsch ist. Zum Beispiel ist von "forced migration" die Rede, was eine Zwangsumsiedlug wäre - LeRoy und Pictet haben aber, so weit ich sehen kann, niemandem Gewalt angetan. Andere Teile der englischen Übersetzung sind komplett unverständlich, wenn man nicht den deutschen Text gelesen hat und weiß, was es heißen soll. Das müsste also komplett neugeschrieben werden. Dazu kommen aber prinzipielle Probleme. Die einzige Quelle, die im Text zitiert wird, ist eine Diplomarbeit ("dissertation" wäre üblicherweise eine Doktorarbeit), die einen einzigen Satz über LeRoy und Pictet verliert. Die Concordia University gibt gar keine Details über die beiden. Die meisten anderen Web-Quellen sind entweder nicht (mehr?) erreichbar oder erwähnen LeRoy und Pictet überhaupt nicht. Das ist nicht genug, um einen Artikel über die beiden (oder ihre Kolonisationsgesellschaft) zu schreiben. Unsere Richtlinie über "notability" verlangt verlässliche Quellen, die das Thema in signifikantem Umfang behandeln - das heisst mehrere Quellen, die jeweils mindestens einen Absatz über das Thema schreiben. Umgekehrt ist die zweite Hälfte des Entwurfs ohne jede Quellenangabe: Woher kommt beispielsweise die Information, dass LeRoy (den die Diplomarbeit übrigens "le Roy" nennt) und Pictet zehn Dörfer gegründet haben?
 * Die deutsche Wikipedia hat oft niedrigere Standards als die englische. Dass es dort einen Artikel über ein Thema gibt, heisst nicht, dass er auch für die englische Wikipedia geeignet wäre. Huon (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sehen Sie auch sonstiges Siebensachen sein - weil ein Artikel in Deustch Wikipedia ist, es meint nich dem Artikel musste zum Englisch Wikipedia gehören. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (For the avoidance of doubt, this is supposed to say "Also look at other stuff exists - just because an article in German Wikipedia exists, doesn't mean it must belong in the English one")

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Novim
I authored an article for the first time about an organization associated with the local university that I attended. The article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Novim. I have gone to several lectures put on by this organization and admire the work they are doing. I was hoping I could get some advice about the reasons for being turned down for notability. I have two reference articles from The Economist and two from a local online newspaper. Is that simply not a large enough quantity of articles for notability?

Keithacarlson (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be certain as to the reasons for the decline of your article, you should contact the person who declined it on their talk page. I looked at the references and found #2 to be good.  The remainder are what we call passing reference, not in-depth. I'm not entirely positive that the Noozhawk is a reliable source, but it seems to be.  If you had one more article from an independent source similar to #2, you will have much more notability points towards acceptance. Thanks for your work. --  :- ) Don  20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When I declined it, there were only two citations, both from the Economist. A reliable source, but focused almost entirely on BEST with only passing mention of Novim. What's worse is that one of the few sentences that did mention Novim questioned their impartiality in light of significant funding from the Koch Foundation. That's hard to square with the unverifiable puffery in the second sentence All of its studies are nonpartisan, emphasizing the science at the core of these global issues and ignoring political influences. The article has since been expanded, though I didn't vet the new sources. I still recommend the lead section be rewritten to be based on neutral facts rather than mission statements. Kilopi (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)