Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 April 9

= April 9 =

I created "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Candida Moss" myself, please take it off waiting list
Hi - just thought I would leave a note to say that although I have been editing on WP for a while now I have never created an article before, and, duh, I did not realise that registered users can just create an article with a click of a button, I thought every new article had to go through a review process. After waiting for weeks, I just discovered that I could create the article myself so I did. I took off the "submit this article for review" template on the draft I sent in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Candida Moss but I don't know if that automatically takes it off the waiting list or not. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that took it off the waiting list. Huon (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AFoCo, ASEAN-ROK Forest Cooperation
I have added reference sources from official government websites, UN, ASEAN Secretariat, news articles. If they are not reliable sources, what are the reliable sources?

--Jmkim (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of your other sources are the governments who concluded this treaty; Wikipedia requires third-party coverage such as newspapers or peer-reviewed scholarly journals. The Korea Times link seems to be broken; that leaves us with a single third-party source, The Korea Herald. That's not very much. Has the treaty had a lasting impact that was discussed in newspapers, reputable magazines or scholarly journals? Huon (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Blackman
I have just realized that I can create the article through the New York Pro Musica link, as some of her colleagues also had their articles created that way by others. PLease cancel my original request for submission. I will also upload her pictures back in the 1950s with NYPM.Alcatrazhack (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 09:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AppsBuilder
i nak buka hasrama tolong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.8.175 (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

so i need maney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.8.175 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not understand. Please write in plain, clear English. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Potter
To OrenBochman, In your review of my WIKI submission you said, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." My submission on Micheal Potter has 14 sources, most of which can be verified by clicking on the blue letters where the source is listed under "references". The others can be verified in a library equivalent to the library I use here at Boise State University. What do I need to do to make this submission acceptable? Thank you, PolecreekPolecreek (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with your references is that they're more to do with the film Orphans of Apollo, than Potter himself, although there are possibly just enough mentions of him in the two sources mentioned to count as significant coverage, which would make him notable and pass. I don't recognise the sources to know if there's sufficient editorial control on what was written there, which is what we mean by reliable sources - ie: we rely on the reputation of the author or publisher to say things that are factually accurate and neutral. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good information but it doesn't really answer my question: "What do I need to do to make this submission acceptable?" Can someone be more specific as to which of the 14 sources are not reliable? Or are they all unreliable? How about OrenBochman can that editor give comment about which of the 14 sources are not reliable? Thank you, Polecreek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polecreek (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me go through them. The last three are written by Potter himself, but Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources. ECTA's "about" page doesn't mention Potter at all, and even if it did, the website of an organization he co-founded would not be an independent source anyway. The same goes for the various other organizations he's affiliated with: Paradigm Ventures, his own company; the IISC where he is a Senior Fellow, Manna Energy where he belongs to the Advisory Council. Geeks without Frontiers doesn't mention Potter, but if it did it would still be an organization he's affiliated with. The reports on the film are of the "Potter said X, Potter mentioned Y" quality with very little detail on Potter himself. Alchemy seems to be hidden behind a login; I didn't check that one. If the copy of the Financial Times article hosted by Paradigm Ventures is a faithful representation, that source doesn't say what it's cited for.
 * What we're looking for are articles about Potter (and not just mentioning him in passing) in newspapers or reputable magazines, articles which were subject to editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ZANEWS
Please could you let me know if the referencing in my article is correct and ready for submission. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZANEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuggetBerrisford (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've run Reflinks on the draft to properly format most of the references - I haven't checked if Reflinks has made any mistakes. You should merge the "Introduction" section into the Lead (The text at the top that has no heading) and the External links need to be trimmed down to only the show's own website and maybe one or two others (but not including any that have been used as references). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul F. Corey
All of the information that I provided in the article on author Paul F. Corey is directly from Anne Corey, daughter of Paul, via written letter - she does not communicate electronically. Dr. Paul Theobald, also cited as a source, had a long correspondence with Paul Corey himself, as well as Anne. I'm not sure how to best cite these sources. Please advise. RuralLitRALLY (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you cannot use those sources. Wikipedia requires reliable published sources so our readers can look them up and verify the draft's content. Huon (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Dkjairaj/कर्नेल(कम्प्यूटर)
if i want to write an article in Hindi ,mainly translation based pages of English or other Indian languages. PLEASE Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjairaj (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, and articles should be written in English. You may want to edit the Hindi Wikipedia to write articles in Hindi. Since most editors here don't speak Hindi we cannot really help you with that. Huon (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Humanistic Mormonism
There is a short listing of Humanistic Mormonism in the Cultural Mormon page but it does not list the religion of Humanistic Mormonism for this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Humanistic_Mormonism)

This is why this page was created. Thank you.

(SamHarris1982 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi Sam, and welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk! Thank you for letting us know your reasons for creating this article submission. I have declined the submission because it is a copyright violation. Please see WP:COPYPASTE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Metaheuristics
There is a disagreement on the definition of "no original research."

One editor thinks the links in the above proposed article contains original research. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, says original research "refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." But yet the subject material all has peer-reviewed sources.

I admit most of the list is a list of self-promotions, but the current definition of original research on wikipedia does not cover this. Please revise the definition of original research, provide the policy that forbids self-promotion, or overrule the individual who rejected the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Metaheuristics. I have a feeling the article will still be rejected, but I feel as if it is currently being rejected for the wrong reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouse7mouse9 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's enshrined in our verifiability policy, for example. Whether or not such sources are original research (and that term is often used to include primary sources reporting on the author's own research), they're clearly not acceptable for the use they're put to here. Huon (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Your explanation is a lot better than "its original research." I originally wanted to create a list mostly for researchers/alert people what exists, even if the actual work is mediocre. So now I wonder, if I find secondary sources (as defined by wikipedia's policy), even "self-promoting" research can be cited? By "self-promoting," I mean the common-sense term: the articles were originally listed for publicity, not the good of the community. If the work is "self-promoting," but there are secondary sources, would that be acceptable? Would I include only the secondary source or both the primary and secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouse7mouse9 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If secondary sources discuss the papers, that would be okay, and the content should be based on what the secondary sources say. If the secondary source explicitly mentions a specific paper, I see nothing wrong with providing bibliographical information and/or a link to that paper. I haven't looked at the specifics of the WP:COI problems the metaheuristics article seems to have suffered, however; it may be better to use some extra caution to avoid the impression of (self-)promotion. Huon (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)