Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 December 11

= December 11 =

UNMATA page
Hello, I'm new at this so please accept my apologies for any beginner errors, but I'm trying to publish a Wikipedia page for my dance troupe, UNMATA, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UNMATA and I'm hoping for some guidance... The feedback I received was "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—... Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." I included our Awards, Filmography, and 7 external news sources under Media. What else can I do to improve notability and referencing? Thank you, WeeRedLass WeeRedLass (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This group is quite probably notable, but the page needs a little cleaning up. Also, the refs to KMTV and Fox News seem to be broken -- these need fixing. Bellerophon talk to me  18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
I understand that u're very understaffed rite now but hopefully someone will have a little time b4 long to do a little vetting on Douglas Dietrich. He has a slug of videos on Youtube and he's been interviewed quite a few times on Coasttocoastam as well as sev others. He is from China and has a vast volume of info about Chinese and Japanese history that has not been known, understood, published by msm or anyone else. (Archives2001 (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC))


 * If there has been significant coverage of him in multiple independent reliable sources as described at VRS then it would be possible to write a Wikipedia article about him. Your existing submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Archives2001/Douglas dietrich is obviously not suitable as a Wikipedia article because it does not provide, or even attempt to provide, such sources. If you want someone else to research and write an article for you then you could do so at Requested articles, but if you are only providing that much information then it seems unlikely that anyone would choose to write the article for you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Uhtaek Oh
To whom it may concern,

I am trying to add an academically notable person. I already completed the draft and would like to know what are the next steps.

thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.218.211.50 (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This article submission is currently awaiting review. This may take a long time (as much as a month or more) as there is currently a very large backlog of submissions waiting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbone Smolan Agency
I submitted an article for review a few weeks ago.

It is in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Porterwritewiki/sandbox

The title is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbone Smolan Agency

I just want to know if I have the draft in the correct place and it is properly in line for review.

I discovered that others can review this draft on line.

Since this is my first submission, I am unfamiliar with the approval and review process. I just want to ensure I am doing everything the right way now.

PorterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your article is correctly submitted for review. There is a substantial backlog at the moment of submissions, so reviewing may take some time. In the meantime, I would look to tone down some of the promotional language such as "Carbone Smolan endures as a design partnership that continues to thrive and evolve in a fickle business and competitive city where hot house creative shops always pop up to push tastes, trends and reinvent styles. In interviews and talks, CSA’s founding partners credit shared values as the reason for enduring success" - this doesn't really tell us much the company in a neutral, partisan, manner. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   17:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Even with permissions, best to hold off on photos until the text is all in; with WP:Fair use images it's mandatory to hold off until publication. So far as neutrality, my standard philosophy: you should write the article in a way that the subject's best friend and worst enemy would agree on. So "Acme is an amazing company" is subjective, but "Acme was founded in 1983, and in 2000 won a contract with the King of Portugal to supply all his horse carriage tack" is literal and objective, with no interpretation or opinion. Other's opinions are fine, such as "The Marquees of Foosbury stated in a 1997 interview that Acme's snuffboxes were "absolutely copacetic"." Foosbury's words are his opinion, but our noting his words is point out a the fact that he made that statement. Now, if you pick-and-choose and disproportionately quite praise despite plenty of criticism, that verges back into WP:POV subjectivity issues. Does that help explain what the goal is? That even someone that hates your subject would have to admit the article is literal and factual? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Great and thanks for the speedy reply and help. I will make some alterations. I also have two images of the principals of the agency to add (with photo credits) but I though I would wait until the text was approved first. In your experience, is that acceptable? PorterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Ritchie333, your explanation is clear. In some cases, I used quotes or assertions from published third-party experts/notable design pros (who have pages on Wiki now) to testify to the quality of the CSA work and legacy. I erred towards "over annotation" knowing we could remove things is reviewers found the references/sources excessive. One thing I know: pages without third party sources get are not credible, even if they are published. PorterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sport Terrorism
I have been trying to write the article for sport terrorism because there is nothing about it and I am an expert on the subject. Is it still under review or should I resubmit?

Thank you, Dr. Orr


 * That article submission is waiting to be reviewed a second time.


 * You don't need to paste the contents of the submission here, so I have removed them. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Non-notable neologism. Seemingly only the person who invented this term has written about it. Bellerophon talk to me  18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting concept and good start, but you need to more clearly show how academics and media have developed the term "sport[s] terrorism" itself. I see a number of published books mention it, as do a bunch of news articles, so instead of vague "some say", you have to add clear footnotes noting what different media/academic authorities have had to say about the concept of sports terrorism. Not examples of what you think are sports terrorism, but how experts have applied the term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sabina Louise
Could someone please take a look at the revisions & let me know your thoughts? Thank you! Tinacornely (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Are Sabina Louise Cornely and Tina Cornely the same person? If so where does it say this? Also, article should be titled according the name most used in the various references, per WP:COMMONNAME. Contact me at User talk:Bellerophon please. Bellerophon talk to me  12:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)