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

= August 9 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Angel Sessions
Hello, My name is Angel Sessions. I put a artical of me on Wikipedia and it was declined. I don't know why, and was'nt given a reason. Please explain to me why my Wikipeia artical was declined. Thank you so much. Angel Sessions — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelSessions (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * All Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reviews in reputable music magazines. We need such sources both so our readers can verify the article's content and to establish that you are notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to be the subject of an article. If Rolling Stone reviewed your album that may be a good source, but you'll have to provide information so we can find it, either a link if the review is available online, or enough bibliographical information to locate the print magazine in a library. And a single source won't be enough to establish notability - we'll need at least three to five such sources that cover you in some detail. Huon (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sadara Chemical Company
Hi! May i know why my article about Sadara Chemical Company has been rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.222.107 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it sings the praises of Sadara without citing any reliable third-party sources: It's unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gati Ltd.
Hi

I had submitted the subject article yesterday (it is my first submission to Wikipedia) and it got rejected for the reason that the reference sources are not authentic enough. I had given the references as company website and a case study published by Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and I believe these sources are authentic enough. Please clarify how these sources are not good enough and what sources would be considered fine to go ahead?

Arun371 (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Arun Batra (Username: arun371)


 * Hello Arun371. You are correct that the rejection message was not as informative as it might have been. You may wish to read WP:VRS which gives some information about the sort of sources that are generally required to establish that a topic is notable enough by Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Also WP:ORG which is Wikipedia's notability guideline specifically for companies and organisations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College
I have two questions 1. can I change the name of article from "Sayd_Abdulrahman_Bafakhy_Tangal_Memorial_Government_College" to "SARBTM Govt College" 2. can I upload college logo into wikipedia page taken from college official website. Kovinmel (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Kovinmel. I am not sure that "SARBTM Govt College" is a good name for the article. Although I admit that "Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College" is rather long too. However, whichever name it ends up as (assuming it is eventually approved), we can create a redirect from the other name as well. So that people looking for either name will find the correct article.


 * It will be possible to upload the college logo as a non-free file if the article submission is accepted. However, please wait until it is accepted before doing so. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glenn Neely
I need to know more specifically why the above article has been denied again, please. I have been told that it is basically an advert being disguised as a biography and that the only biographical information in the article is the year this person was born.

I fail to see where the advertising in the article is and I need someone's help in pointing it out to me so that I can adjust it. The only mention of any of this person's commercial information is to back information such as the specific details of the theory that he has created in regards to stock market prediction. I used his website as a resource of this theory because he is the best source in explaining his theory, just as if a personal interview had been done. His website is only noted in the sources and is never mentioned in the article itself, even though he has a whole institute that he trains people on his theory through.

His only other commercial information would be the two books that he has written, but there are no links to where one could find these books. His books are used as a resource by those that watch and write about the stock market, in addition to those that trade on the stock market.

The information is written in an unbiased point of view with opposing theory views added, as well as a source being used and pointed out in the article that he is not always right in his predictions. If it was a commercial it would not point this information out as it would not instill much confidence that he could help you make money in the stock market.

The focus of the article is on his theory and how it adds to another theory that has a Wikipedia page(Elliot Wave Theory)in which he is actually mentioned. Yes, his theory is commercial in nature because his contributions are to a financial field and that is how he made his living, but I am not sure how the information is any different or more commercial than that of those that have Wikipedia pages such as; Walt Disney, Stephen King, Robert Prechter, Ralph Nelson Elliot, or Charles Merrill. All of these pages talk about the products that these notable people created and their commercial ventures that are even to this day making someone money.

This is where I need your help. I need to know what is standing out in this article as being too commercial compared to other articles that are already pages.

I am worried that with the huge amount of backlog that there is currently that it was reviewed quickly to try and get through the backlog, instead of being given the time it would have been given if there was not a huge amount of backlog.

Thanks for your help, GlePa GlePa (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is supposed to be about the person, not the theory, and it provides next to no information on the person. Where and when was he educated, for example? Also, you have made the draft significantly worse since I last had a look at it. You removed all the links to the online sources. Compare this old version's references. You blatantly misrepresent the sources when you say he "has been right often enough though that he is closely watched and analyzed" - that's not even close to what the cited source says (that part also reads rather promotional and not encyclopedic). You cite sources that don't even mention him, and sources written by himself or his company. You quote blogs (which are not reliable anyway) at such length that we might run into copyright problems. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, conversation on this always makes it easier to correct mistakes that have been made instead of assuming what needs to be corrected.

In regards to what you have pointed out:

1) This person was self taught in this field, he has no educational background to put in the article which is why there is none.

2) The removal of the links to the online sources were an oversight by me in trying to fix the article in the way you directed me to the last time. I put in the sources and did not link them, it was a mistake that is easily fixed by putting the links in. It was not an attempt to try and cover up information.

3) As to the blatant misrepresentation of the particular source that you pointed out, the source clearly states in the title that Neely is a "guru" and links him with all of the other "experts" in the field. The point in which this source appears in the article also clearly points out that Neely is not always right; which is exactly what the article says.

4)I have already defended why I used a source from his company. It was the best source to use as to how he started his work and what his theory details. There is no better source on personal information than from the person themselves.  This source was not used to promote Neely, but to provide verification of information on his theory. hi 5)I need you to point out which of the sources do not mention him. Of the 8 sources I used, 7 talk directly about Neely. Source number 2 does not mention Neely as it was not meant to, it was meant as verification of the Elliot Wave theory information that is in this article.

6)Five of the eight source that I used are in no way connected to Neely, they were not written by him, posted by him, or connected in anyway to his company. You pointed this out to me last time and that is the major change that I made to the article.

7)You say that I quote unreliable blogs at such length that we may have a copyright problem. Will you kindly point out which of my 8 sources you feel we will have issues with so that I may correct the issue.

Thank you again for your help on this project, GlePa GlePa (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have copyedited the draft again; I'd prefer not doing so a third time. Let me give your sources the once-over. The first one is his own company, not an independent source. The second doesn't mention Neely. The third is again his own company. The fourth was not subject to editorial oversight (thus it's not reliable) and doesn't say what it's cited for - it neither mentions the "three additions" nor does it state what book people usually refer to. The fifth is a self-published blog without editorial oversight, and again it doesn't confirm the statement about what book most people refer to. I have no idea what the sixth source is, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's misrepresented. For comparison, Time named Hitler and Stalin "men of the year", that was not an indication of high regard. Furthermore, I'd expect that the sources for "stock market publications throughout the field" don't actually discuss other publications in the field. I already commented on the seventh source - it's actually the best of the bunch, but it does not at all discuss how often Neely is right or not. The eighth is yet another blog, and almost the entire "Opposing points of view" section is quoted from that source. So there's a single reliable third-party source among the bunch, and that doesn't say what it's cited for - it doesn't really say much at all about Neely. Huon (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kellie Torrey
My article was rejected due to citations. I have revamped this article twice now and need help getting it published. I do not understand why it was rejected as it appears to have enough references to approve. Davisj1359 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Entire sections don't cite any sources. That's not acceptable for the biography of a living person. Other sections cite sources, but the sources don't say what they're cited for. That's worse. As an aside, some proofreading for grammar and spelling may also help, though that's not why the draft was rejected. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertære Socialister
I'm having problems getting an article submitted - it has been rejected 4 times now - and I'm running out of ideas and energy soon. Please help me!

Here is the aricle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Libert%C3%A6re_Socialister

And here is a discussion I'm having with the lates reviewer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hasteur#Libert.C3.A6re_Socialister

In this discussion, where non of my questions were answered, the reviewer gave giving me a different reason for rejecting the articel than first given. Now the reviewer is telling me that the organization is not notable enough. In an academic repport from Roskilde University (reffered to in the article) it says: "Libertære Socialister - LS (Libertarian Socialists) is the most important and most visible representative of the anarchist trend in Denmark" and there are plenty of references to mainstream media sources. There is already a danish article about this organization: (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A6re_Socialister) and when I read the Wikipedia notability guideline on Non-commercial organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations) I find no reason for rejecting my article - the organization meet both standards mentioned and this additional standard: "Factors that have attracted widespread attention". What is the real reason for rejecting this article and what should I do?

Makhno partisan (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at a couple of the draft's sources, and of those I checked, only the Roskilde University report was a reliable third-party source covering the organizations in any detail. Many other source only mention it in passing, or not at all. Yet others are primary sources such as the organization's own websites, or unreliable sources such as blogs. A lone good source is not enough to establish that the organization is notable. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sports Mastery
Hello, I have added multiple authors and sources for my sports mastery article. I don't understand how it is a neogolism if others are already talking about it and its history dates back to the mid 1900's. Please help get my article published. Thanks MarcC75 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Does any of your sources discuss the term? What's the difference between "Sports Mastery" and "being really good at a certain sport"? Should we also have articles on, say, "Programming Mastery" or "Painting Mastery" or "Language Mastery" if we find a couple of sources that say those things can be mastered?
 * There are also spam issues: The Gary Stebbing website serves no purpose in that article except to promote Stebbing. It doesn't even say what it's cited for, and if it did it would still not be a reliable source. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gregory Betts
Hello! I could use some help!

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gregory Betts

I'm trying create this entry about the Canadian writer, Gregory Betts, and it keeps getting rejected. I must be vey thick because, though I keep working to improve it, I'm clearly missing the point.

The latest reviewer stated that I was using "Peacock terms."

The only place that I can see that might be this: "His creative work and research all explore the boundaries and limits of avant-garde literary production especially in Canada." Is this "exploring the boundaries" -- which I actually mean as a neutral term, because he does examine extreme practices which are at the 'boundaries' and 'limits' of Canadian literature--the offending phrase?

In terms of references, I have gathered cites and information from national newspapers, regional newspapers, internationally respected website/archive/encyclopedia, etc.

I'm hoping to be able to contribute more articles to Wikipedia but first have to figure out what I'm doing wrong!

Thanks very much for your help and advice.

Garybarwin (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The example you give is indeed problematic. It sounds just like what you'd expect from a publisher's sales blurb. It also doesn't cite any sources, and I, for one, have no idea what "being at the limits of Canadian literature" is supposed to mean - surely not "writing while close to the US". If he went a little further, would his writings cease to be Canadian literature? If not, why is there a limit? You also use adjectives such as "many" and "numerous" - those are weasel words that sound great without providing any information. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SightLife
The article I trying to create, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SightLife, has conflicting messages on it. At the top it says that it has not been submitted for review. Then at the bottom it says that the review is pending. So which is it?

Also, I thought after 4 days and 10 contributions you could self publish. But I didn't find that option. Is that not true?

Thank you, Theworldthroughneweyes (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Kelsie


 * The message at the bottom is correct: It's submitted for review. The other message is a relic that should soon be removed by a bot.
 * Technically you can move the page into the mainspace. But the draft currently cites far too few reliable sources and sounds unduly promotional. For the second reason alone it would be speedily deleted in the mainspace. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Since you're closely associated with the topic you write about I'd strongly recommend you instead go through the review process. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Goldfarb
My team wants to create a Wikipedia page. We submitted a bio with sources including iMDb and a professional website with various news articles and links to other pages.

What may we provide to facilitate this process?

Thank you,

David Goldfarb James Nodvin, Manager T.Posey, Talent Agent

70.197.73.22 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and I expect neither is the professional website - it's written by yourselves without any editorial oversight, isn't it? The draft's current sources barely mention Goldfarb's name (in fact, one of them doesn't); that's not the kind of coverage that can help to establish that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Resubmitting Article
Hi,

I had an article rejected a few months ago and I'd like to resubmit it. I have made changes and addressed the issues of concern voiced by the editor. I was able to edit and save the article, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to resubmit it for review. Can you please give me some instructions?

Thank you,

Kathryn Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YogaSlackers

Kjoyslacker (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a draft template to the draft that has instructions for resubmission, but I'd say the draft reads far too promotional. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)