Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 April 24

= April 24 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/10 West Studios
Is it normal for a user User:LionMans Account to delete sections in an AfC submission and then leave the article for someone else to review? 009o9 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)009o9 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's slightly unusual, but it's permitted. Almost all pages on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The account sure looks like a vandal operating under a new name -- I'll readup on the MOS for vandalism. Thanks! 009o9 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

MD Rabbi Alam
MD Rabbi Alam

I am trying to create a page with titled "MD Rabbi Alam" which was deleted by you in the past. Here is the reference page for Mr. Alam. Please advice me how can I be successful in creating this page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaty87 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable magazines. Ballotpedia looks like user-submitted content to me, without editorial oversight: That's not a reliable source. However, some of the sourcs listed in Ballotpedia's article, such as the St Louis Post-Dispatch article, may serve as sources for a Wikipedia article as well (others aren't useful; in particular Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and the "MD for Missouri" website isn't independent). If MD Rabbi Alam has received significant coverage in such sources, you can use the Article Wizard to write a draft by summarizing what the reliable sources say about him. Your past draft was deleted because it was considered unduly promotional - Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. What do you think about this source?

1. MD Rabbi Alam MD Rabbi Alam

2. A Democratic Party caucus chairman vying to become Missouri’s next secretary of state is a 9/11 Truther who has associated with a radical Muslim cleric and trafficked in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

MD Rabbi Alam is an Obama campaign ally and Missouri-based Democratic activist who chairs the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC), a Democratic National Committee-sponsored organization that liaises with Asian minorities.

Alam, who was born in Bangladesh, served as a “satellite campaign manager” for then-candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 elections, and has since been invited to the White House. MD Rabbi Alam titled as Secretary of Truth when Ran for Missouri Secretary of State

3. Muslim Missouri Democratic Party caucus chairman launches 9-11 Truth PAC Muslim Missouri Democratic Party caucus chairman launches 9-11 Truth PAC

4. MD Rabbi Alam organizing Million Muslim March on 9/11/13 Muslims to march on White House next September 11th Press TV Published January 31, 2013, MD Rabbi Alam is the founder of AMPAC

5. ATTENTION Bare Naked Islam (BNI) READERS! Muslim stealth jihadists plan to hijack this year’s 9/11 Anniversary of the Muslim terrorist attacks on our nation with a ‘MILLION MUSLIM MARCH’ in Washington DC to demand special treatment for Muslims MD Alam's TV Interview on Trento Vision

6. Tom Trento of The United West interviews MD ‘Rabbi’ Alam, the Muslim who is behind Million Muslim March in Washington DC on 9/11/13 Tom Trento of The United West interviews MD ‘Rabbi’ Alam, the Muslim who is behind Million Muslim March in Washington DC on 9/11/13

Please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaty87 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already commented on the use (or lack thereof, more precisely) of Ballotpedia. I'm not sure about The Washington Free Beacon; it looks like and billets itself as a newspaper but seems rather biased ("Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the professional left hopes will never see the light of day", it says); you may want to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard for more input on that. The Presstv.ir piece is an opinion piece and would be considered reliable only for the author's opinion, not for statements of fact. BareNakedIslam definitely is not a reliable source, and I doubt they're notable enough for us to even consider their opinion. Huon (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Ballotpedia?

MD Rabbi Alam in Ballotpedia

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaty87 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I said it before: Ballotpedia looks like user-submitted content to me, without editorial oversight: That's not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

hi
hi,

i want to "JPet Store" total information means which are supported,how deploy in apache tomcat based web server? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.194.12 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Huon (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meg Barker
Has my application for Meg Barker's page been submitted? How do I know??? The instructions aren't clear at all - this is the third time I've edited this page and it seems to disappear into the ether............. I'm not a computer programmer, I just want to add a new page! What have I missed?

Tibbybendall (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your draft has been submitted for review. I've removed an older duplicate draft and did some copyediting (for example, we should refer to Barker by her surname, not her given name). The main problem is that you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of your references supports which of the draft's statements. See WP:Referencing for beginners for an introduction on how to add footnotes.
 * The "disappears into the ether" is probably due to the technical details of the submission process: Submission adds an almost-empty section to the end of the draft, but does not blank the draft itself. I expect you just saw that almost-empty section. Huon (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cordell & Cordell
Hello,

I have a question regarding the denial of submission of an article I created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cordell & Cordell. The reasons for denial were "the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable." After reading the guidelines on notability, it states the organization "is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

My submission included roughly a dozen of the country's most elite, respected, and reliable media outlets covering the Cordell & Cordell law firm and its principals, including, but not limited to The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, CNN, and Huffington Post. To me, that certainly qualifies as a notable organization that is subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Will you please expound on the reasoning behind the denial or what sort of other reliable, secondary sources you are looking for if the aforementioned do not suffice? Due to the lack of archived articles in some instances, I could not include links to other profiles in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (a profile in addition to the WSJ article already cited in the submission). I do have PDF copies of those articles if it would help to upload those and include that in the submission.

Thank you for any input you can provide.

Matt Mattallen1979 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for sources with greater depth of coverage - so that Cordell & Cordell could be seen as a notable law practice, not merely rent-a-quotes. The sources are reliable, but their articles were about the current state of divorce law, child custody, mens rights, etc. and didn't give much insight into what C & C does when not talking to the media. There is no requirement that sources be online, so if your offline sources are better, use them and resubmit. Kilopi (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Marc Thorpe Question
Hello,

I created a new Publications section for my article on Marc Thorpe to have Third Party references as requested.

However, I received a message from Huon stating I need the Third Party references in the "Draft". Where in the Draft do I need to include Third Party References and how do I "summarize" what the Third Party references say?

I would like to do this edit in the best way so to get approval and need some help.

Thank you Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairePijoulat (talk • contribs)


 * Take for example Thorpe's family. You currently cite his mother's website and his father's faculty page, neither of which mentions Thorpe himself and neither of which would be an independent source anyway. Instead you should cite a third-party source that discusses Thorpe's family background in some detail, and you should summarize in your own words (I'm sorry, but I can't really explain the word "summarize"; are you really saying you're not familiar with that term?) what the source says about Thorpe's family. The same goes for all the other content: Your references are to primary sources, often the websites of organizations directly involved in the relevant event that mention Thorpe only in passing, or not at all. Huon (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999
Hello, Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999 The submission of this article has been rejected because there is not sufficient viable evidence. I have put in links to various websites of organisations involved at the time. Do you need more than just the website link? There were also organisations where the NALG was registered as a charity and funded from. What sort of evidence would you require from them other than say a quoted charity number which I have given?

Thank you for you help, Woodbutts (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two problems. Firstly, you haven't linked to any websites. For example, http://Norwich%20Rosary%20Cemetery is not the cemetery's website; that would be http://www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/norwichrosary/norwichrosary.htm. Secondly, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable arts magazines. Organizations that were involved would be considered primary sources, not independent ones. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the gallery must have been the subject of significant coverage in such independent sources; the organizations where NALG was registered as a charity would likely not provide that significant coverage (and those it was funded from once again aren't independent). Huon (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Haerle (2)
Hi, I need to find out how to properly reference the information I am including in an article on my friend, and former teacher, Dan Haerle. All of the information   that I have in my article is either information that I have obtained from Dan or information that I have interviewed him concerning. How do I go about providing a reference for this material at the end of the article?

Mike Myers Mmyers6167 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In short, not at all. Wikipedia requires reliable published sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. There's no way for our readers to verify what Haerle told you, and even if there were, Haerle is not an independent source on himself. Huon (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Articles for creation/Chris Clodfelter
This page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Clodfelter was declined due to lack of notability in the area of MMA. Can it be reconsidered due to his muay thai notability rather than his MMA experience? MMA notability requires participation in 3 top tier MMA organization competitions. Muay thai is Clodfelter's area of primary notability. If he has participated in 3 top tier Muay Thai organization competitions will he also meet notability requirements? If so, I can gather proof of top tier muay thai experience to include. Thanks for your help! Leighthal17 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say you should show that the article satisfies the general notability guideline: That Clodfelter has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him, such as articles in newspapers or reputable sports magazines. The article currently doesn't show evidence of such coverage. We'd need mulitple good sources that write at least a paragraph each about Clodfelter. Huon (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Association of Professional Declutterers and Organisers UK
Can someone PLEASE tell me why - after countless updates over the past year - the article I submitted and re-submitted for creation entitled The Association of Professional Declutterers and Organisers UK as still not been approved. I seem to have made all the changes requested, but still it remains unapproved. What am I doing wrong please?

We have our annual Member's conference on 13th May 2013, and I would very much like to have it live by then please.

Many thanks! Cherry Rudge

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Association_of_Professional_Declutterers_and_Organisers_UK

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChezzaPink (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is with the draft's sources. Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject have to say about it, and to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, the organization must have received significant coverage in such sources. The Guardian and the Telegraph are reliable sources, but they mention the Association only in passing - that's not significant coverage. Most other sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Unless much better sources can be found, I doubt the Association is notable. If you're associated with the APDO, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)