Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 April 5

= April 5 =

Article replacement necessary for Lana Del Rey's Paradise Tour
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paradise Tour should replace the current Paradise Tour article. The current live article contains absolutely no references, is messy (note link at bottom of set list and the 'box office score data' which is for shows that have not even been performed yet/ are still on sale, and have not been recorded yet- completely illogical), and various inclusions of false information. The following are examples of false information:

- The writer wrote that "More tour dates, including dates for America, will be released soon". This has not been confirmed at all.

- The poster included is not actually for the tour. It is a poster to promote the album.

In short, the article Paradise Tour should be replaced by the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paradise Tour as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paradise Tour is well-referenced, accurate and well-structured, and a suitable article for the tour in question. Please resolve this as soon as possible.

Alexander1112 (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't delete articles to replace them with drafts; you should edit the current article to improve it. But your draft currently heavily relies on dubious sources such as the official tour website, press releases or fan websites - those are not reliable sources. Huon (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/History of catecholamine research
Please help. If I understand the procedures correctly, I "submitted" this article on March 16. It is an adaptation of "my" (Coranton's) article "Geschichte der Catecholaminforschung" in the German Wikipedia. Is it correctly placed? It is now waiting since three weeks. Somewhere I read that articles by "non-registered users" have to wait for a registered user to accept them. But am not I a "registered user"? When I log in in the German Wikipedia, I am automatically logged in in the English as well.

A confused contributor asks for clarification.

Coranton (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically you could directly create the article in the main articlespace without waiting for the Articles for creation process, which is currently severely backlogged. However, the draft currently takes a rather liberal view of sources (for example, the source for the claim that Salter's book was the best book on asthma in the 19th century is Salter's book itself) and to me looks like a massive synthesis of the original research papers with few, if any, sources that actually discuss the history of catecholamine research (as opposed to the research itself). It seems overly detailed; I'd suggest using parts of the draft to improve our main catecholamine article instead. Huon (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon. I guess you are right, although (1) Salter's book is generally thought to be "the best book on asthma in the 19th century", and references for this general view could easily be given, (2) six sources that discuss the history of catecholamine research are cited under "General References", (3) yes, I have unfolded in detail what these "general references" discuss and added more details to present catecholamine history from the very beginning to (as you surely noticed) the year 2012, and (4) in the introductory paragraph I have tried to explain why the subject deserves an article of its own, and deserves attention to detail.

Why not place it in the main articlespace (I didn't know how to write it there and don't know how to shift it) and leave it there to its fate?

Coranton (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because its fate in the main articlespace might be deletion as an essay. If you want to try, see WP:Moving a page. Huon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zimmerman/Edelson, Inc.
I would like to submit an article for review that includes content cited from articles that are not available online. The information is from articles that predate their sources online archives (from local newspapers circa 1995). How might I go about submitting these sources to verify the content?

Thank you, MOLLY O'CONNOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moconnor5 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Offline sources are entirely acceptable; you will have to provide sufficient details to allow readers to identify the source and look it up in a library: Newspaper, publication date, page number, author, title, ... You may want to use Template:Cite news to neatly format the references. That said, I don't think the company is notable if it only has received local news coverage. Huon (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ALPAO
Do you think that the page ALPAO (here) is good enough for starting to publish it ? Thank you for your help and in advance. -- Hardoche (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Neither of your sources seems to discuss the company, making the draft's content largely unverifiable and raising concerns about the company's notability. You should cite newspapers or reputable trade magazines that discuss the company itself in some detail - multiple such sources of at least a paragraph each about the company would be necessary. Huon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your feedback and explanation. I added several other references. Do you think that the page ALPAO (here) may now be good enough for starting to publish it ?
 * Thank you again and in advance for your help. --Hardoche (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crescent Schools Tvvb
Unnfggfgggfvyyyyyyfgffgguj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.74.50 (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How may we help you? Huon (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quixey
The latest submission of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quixey was declined for being "written like an advertisement." Could you elaborate on this claim, and give advice for how to remedy the issue? This reason wasn't raised after the article was initially declined. The only issues raised then had to do with the validity of the sources. Would like to change the language to be more neutral, so any current examples that seem biased would be very helpful. Also if any sources are clearly not valid, please note them. Many thanks!

Quixey (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say the sources are still problematic, not because they are unreliable, but because the draft's content all too often isn't based on what the sources actually say. The most extreme example is the "Founders and Executives" section which cites one source that doesn't confirm most of that section's content.
 * There are also tone issues: "The Search Engine for Apps" with caps, "highest quality results", and so on. The most obvious is the ™ - you won't find that in, say, the Apple Inc. article.
 * So in short, you have given the sources the most positive spin possible, at times veering into positive spin without a source. I expect WP:COI will already have been pointed out to you. Huon (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FunderHut
I'm unsure of the sections where proper source citation is required. It seems to be properly cited, linking to both the website itself, as well as the Trademark website.

Alanfh123 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To be considered notable, the website must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines. The website itself clearly isn't independent, and the trademark directory isn't significant coverage. We need multiple good sources of at least a paragraph each about the company. Huon (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shadrach Ofosuware (2nd copy)
I need help in moving this article forward please.Aliceako (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be a better idea for you to spend time sourcing or removing the very large amounts of unsourced material in your existing article Freedom Centre International. I've added a template to the top of that article to indicate the problem. I will begin removing material that's non-encyclopedic, unsourced and unsourceable from that article in a few weeks. This should give you time to find sources if they exist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)