Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 December 19

= December 19 =

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mel_Elias
Hello, I would appreciate some assistance and guidance. I have submitted an entry several times for someone (after making suggested revisions) and am still having it rejected due to a lack of notability. I have tried to demonstrate notability by including the following: - That the person is the CEO of the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, which is a big company (over 900 locations) and is very well known (and loved by me) in the US and Asia. [] - included links to articles from publications (Forbes, Nations Restaurant News) - included awards and nominations, with supporting links - included bio information, with supporting stories in notable media - included achievements under his leadership at the company, with supporting links

I also removed other information and links that were not sufficient, based on past advice.

Wikipedia has multiple entries for people that are IMHO, far less notable (based on title, achievements, company affiliation, etc.)

I want to create other coffee industry profiles and content, but this has been discouraging and I'm ready to give up. Can anyone please provide me advice on how to better demonstrate notability, create an entry or deal with this process.

Thank you very much for your help! JeffAllenNYC (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Jeff A.

Rachael Robertson (writer)
✅ There is already on wikipedia a different Rachael Robertson who has a very short wiki entry and has not been a public figure for over a decade. Is there a way to change her entry to Rachael_Robertson_TV_Presenter and change the above entry to Rachael_Robertson?

Alternatively, calling this Rachael Robertson a writer is not helpful. This is only a small portion of her work. Most of her work is public speaking, and her reason for being in wikipedia stems from her time in Antarctica. Thank you Ric.lamont (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done: I've moved the earlier article, and made a WP:Disambiguation page Rachael Robertson that directs to both. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coach Cain
Coach Cain was born Rasheen Jones on May 8, 1980 in Anchorage, Alaska. He was born into a military family and they moved to Atlanta, Georgia when he was a youngster. Due to family hardships, Corey Cain and his family have resided all over the Metro Atlanta area; he is known from the Eastside to the Westside of Atlanta. In 2005, he and a group of friends started an independent label called Y.P.N. Entertainment. In early 2008, Corey Cain and his younger brother were shot in an apparent home invasion and left for dead. Both he and his brother survived and he is currently attending rehab to regain his ability to walk. He has made tremendous progress and he feels that he was left here to add this experience to a long list of overcome obstacles. After his life altering experience Corey Cain felt the need for change in his personal and professional life. He started another record label, N.C.A.A. (Never Changing Always Adapting). It is his goal to jump start this label with his recently finished mix tape. Corey Cain has always had the ability to create pictures with words while adding his easy finesse to any track. He is the epitome and essence of a street lyricist, poet and entrepreneur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlyjones.kj (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Requested articles. I hope this helps. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FOTIT
I recently made a submission of my article and was rejected saying that it contain materials having copyright.Im sure it doesnot contain any materials with copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotit (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Fotit. The text for that article was almost all copied from http://www.fotitfotos.blogspot.ca/ .   Wikipedia editors must edit as individuals, and not as representatives of an organization or product.  Any text which has been previously published or which was written for an organization or company can't be added to Wikipedia for copyright reasons.  If you are the copyright holder, it is possible to donate the text (here's the process: Donating copyrighted materials), but in this case it would be pointless, because it isn't written in the formal, neutral tone which Wikipedia requires.  Also, Wikipedia would immediately license the text for anyone in the world to use, change, or sell.  It would be quicker to just write a concise, factual article written especially for Wikipedia, including references to independent, reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, web site reviews, etc., to show that this topic has been written about extensively by journalists and other authors.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ice day
Hallo! Please can somebody look at the article. I believe the issues are fixed.--Gelli63 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Gervasi
I recently made a submission of my article and was rejected without any explanation whatsoever. The biography of the person in question was put some effort into and it concerned a VERY prominent intellectual on the left. Is this the idea of right wing wikipedia "admins", to delete anything that concerns left wing history? I find it appalling how little intellectual capacity is available at wikipedia if this somehow is an example of the norm around here. This is not serious, it borders on complete dishonesty and complete disregard for academic honesty or any kind of honesty for that matter. Utterly disgusting behavior and it only adds to furthering the already large feeling in Europe that Wikipedia is and has become completely saturated with a uncritical and unthinking conservative bias so large that Wikipedia itself has been rendered completely useless when it comes to history and historical information as well as even the most _basic_ information on _anything_ of political nature. Heck, when you cant even get a _biography_ on a deceased left wing academic into wikipedia, the limit has been reached _and_ BREACHED. I think this will e my last attempt at contributing anything here and I dont think I will care whether or not you take heed or what your replies are. I hope this is down to just one person who took the initiative to delete the biography and the several hours of work put into investigating it, in order for other people to get information on this person who is quoted throughout and was even interviewed on one of the longest running intellectual TV shows in the US, as well as considered important enough to be invited to the UK by the BBC for _their_ expert panel on the Yugoslavian break up and conflict. I'm not sure what criteria you set for becoming an admin/someone who evaluates articles for creation projects, but, suffice to say, this is beyond asinine. The work of an incompetent nincompoop. And sure: "we can't have an article on George Orwell (fill in) because the guy who proposed it called me an incompetent nincompoop". There you go. Make further asses of yourselves and dump wikipedia credibility some more together with it. We give up on you. 46.15.91.237 (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear 46.15.91.237: I'm sorry that you are upset, but I'm afraid that your indignation is unjustified. First of all, your article has not been deleted, and none of the work has been wasted.  The reviewer did indeed leave an explanation, which was a request to cite specific reliable sources in the body of the article, next to the facts, which is Wikipedia's policy for all biographies.  The more prominent the subject, the more important this is for the protection of the person in the biography. Remember, we don't know who you are, and you'd be surprised how often people try to add false or misleading information to Wikipedia.  The specific citations (not just database search engine results or other vague references) allow editors to check up on the facts.  As to your accusation that Wikipedia has a right-wing bias, this is totally untrue, and you should read the complaints from right-wing types saying the opposite!  The criteria is only that the person have been written about in news reports, magazine articles, books, etc.  In spite of your decision to give up on Wikipedia, it's likely that another interested editor, perhaps someone with more patience who doesn't resort to namecalling, will take the time to properly cite this article in the future, and your subject will end up in the encyclopedia.  Or, you could just decide to get on with it yourself.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/That's Live
I am confused as to why "That's Live" was not accepted, as no reason was given. The CD album involved is referred to elsewhere on wikipedia, e.g. Eric_Burdon_discography and Access_All_Areas_(Eric_Burdon_%26_Brian_Auger_Band_album). Pages exist for successive live albums by this major artist. Grimhype (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason is given, very clearly, in the grey box at the top of your draft, and that feedback includes a number of useful links which you should read. You should also read WP:INHERITED. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Turtle Conservancy
Hi, I am working on this article to be published. I would love some of your feedbacks and etc Thank you for your time.

best

Guang

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Systems Made Simple
I am a new editor to Wikipedia. Can you help me understand why my submission has been declined multiple times now and what I need to do to gain approval?

Thank you

Ronal Beckslico (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the article goes into far too much detail for a general encyclopedia. Second, you have zero usable sources that show the subject is notable (References 1 and 2 are the same content, and are a name drop; Reference 3 is a press release. We can't use any of them). — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Ferguson
I really need my page looked at before December 24th because it is due in as a task in my project of The Minors of the Sporting World — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyScotsman2 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teaching for Transfer
I'm not really sure why the article I created was rejected. There are two reasons given: 1) It is a neologism, and 2) There may be a conflict of interest.

For the first objection, it says that in order for a neologism to be permitted, it must be supported by "strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources." In my article, I cited texts that include an encyclopedia published by a well respected press, articles from four different peer reviewed journals, and a book published by a reputable university press. I'm not exactly sure what about these sources make them not qualify as independent, reliable, or published.

For the second reason, I decided to create an article on Teaching for Transfer because it is a topic that I am interested in, and I was surprised to find that Wikipedia didn't already have an article on the topic. The only reason I can think why I might be considered to have a conflict of interest is because I know Kathleen Blake Yancey, one of the authors of the forthcoming book I listed in my references. It is through my knowledge of her that I was able to read a chapter from the book that is being published early next year. I can remove this reference if it seems like I am trying to promote her book. However, I hardly think that she needs any promotion from me - she is already a major figure in her field. I simply thought that anyone interested in the topic would like to know about some of the latest research coming out. I am new to this topic, so I created the article hoping that other people who are more knowledgeable about it would make contributions to build it into a better resource.

If I could have a little more information about exactly why my article was rejected and what I specifically could do to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia, I would appreciate it so much.

Smarshall86 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)smarshall86